Why are some so against learning how to read people in flirting?

[27Thousand]

You might even try approaching a woman and telling her that you are interested in studying human flirtation and wondered if she would be interested in assisting you... as long as you are only joking though mind. ;-)

I think that would be a sense of humor. (those smileys on discussion forums are much different than in person. My body language isn't so good in person, so I think mathematical models can give me a good outline of what to practice in real life. Mathematical models plus tons of real life practice of them may help)

 

[whs]

As far as learning from trial and error, do you think I'd need something to try in the first place for that to work? Just like there are some who have learning disorders/dyslexia, wouldn't some neurologically have trouble picking up on these things naturally, but be able to learn similar to how you'd learn to play the piano or how those with learning disorders/dyslexia can be tutored?

In order to learn from trial and error, wouldn't you need to learn how to read body language and the person for you to pick up on what works? So what do you think about needing a starting point where body language is learned? Otherwise, wouldn't you just be at square one again?

Are you saying you have a learning disability? Otherwise like all of your other analogies, you aren't making sense.

A starting point where body language is learned? Geez man, have you never talked to another human being in your life?

What do you mean your body language isn't good in person, stop being so vague and go out and walk the walk instead of talking so much.

I'm just going to say it: You are doomed.

 

[27Thousand]

Are you saying you have a learning disability? Otherwise like all of your other analogies, you aren't making sense.

A starting point where body language is learned? Geez man, have you never talked to another human being in your life?

What do you mean your body language isn't good in person, stop being so vague and go out and walk the walk instead of talking so much.

I'm just going to say it: You are doomed.

Here's where I'm coming from, in high school people wouldn't let me talk to them. Then after high school some said that I was an extreme recluse and they thought it was weird. Later on I read in a book that people use eye contact to show if they want to interact. After I started using that, I noticed that it seemed like people were being much more friendly to me all of a sudden.

Before age 20 I thought it was weird how friends would make fun of other friends, then I heard from someone that they're just joking around just to lighten up their day. I read in a book that you can tell by the context, tone of voice, and facial expressions to tell if they're playfully joking. I'm still bad at telling if someone's joking around, but am much better.

I read in a book if a woman smiles at you and you avoid eye contact, she's not going to be as friendly as if you smile back at the woman. I started trying that and it seemed like they all of a sudden started acting more friendly.

By just going out and doing it, I never learned anything. I didn't even know what to try nor how to read what's going on. Then by reading a book and trying it in person, although I was still much in the dark, much good came about. Just like some have OCD, some have learning disorders, some have dyslexia, what's to stop some from neurologically having trouble picking up on these things that most just figure out naturally?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1. I heard in Science they say the better the "predictive power" of a theory/principle/model, the better it is for technology. In the hard sciences, mathematical models maximize this predictive power, so if one was to look at graphs/plots/other data visualization, maybe one could maximize their potential if general patterns are found? I'm just curious what you would say about that, and why? (remember, not all equations in the hard sciences are exact predictions but often they have probability within a certain range and are still falsifiable and good for technology)

Admittedly my experience in this area is not based on scientific method but I would guess, based on that experience, that the added predictive power of any equations you may come up with above that of standard observation of signals would be relatively minimal. The number of unknown variables when speaking with a stranger (specifically the elements of the individual persons psychological makeup) is quite large. I would say that attempting to deduce a persons interest based solely on 'flirtation equations' would be akin to trying to predict the weather with only the temperature and humidity without benefit of wind direction, wind speed, cloud concentration, ect. Specific and precise equations may be better than a rough guess but not by much, in my personal estimation.

2. It can make it more quantifiable in showing that non-verbal behaviors are related to interest, even if not exact. So if someone in the other discussion forum at PhysicsForums later on says body language isn't related to interest at all, I'd be able to whip out an equation to show and make it quantitative. That would make it more rigorous in Scientific Method?

I am pretty sure I read the thread you are referring to here and you seem rather stuck on it. ;-)
I do not think anyone believes that body language is not a decent gauge of interest but rather that it is not a very precise one. You are relating the usefulness of such equations to those of Galileo and Newton and I think that people are simply warning you that human bodies are not as predictable as apples and planets. That body the moon is more constant than the one belonging to Juliet.

I absolutely agree. I'm just under the impression that being better able to read whether she'd be receptive would increase the likelihood of trying to talk to someone who'd possibly get somewhere. Do you think I'd also have more confidence because instead of worrying about impressing, I'd mostly be going after those who'd be receptive?

I think that 'rules of thumb' would be sufficient and, as noted, not much less predictive than equations.
As for confidence... It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have aspergers or something similar? Perhaps our brains work differently, so you may not have the same emotional response as I, but my confidence has come more from experience than study. I am a people watcher myself, and have been since I was a small child, so I felt that I had a good handle on what women are like but my confidence with regard to women (what little I have) did not come until I actually dove in and gained myself some hands on experience... so to speak. Similarly you could not have confidence in your equations until successfully applied.

Now, no offense, it seems to me that you are displacing the issue here. Rather than attempting to learn in the more traditional method you are focusing on study which is an internal and eminently more controllable process which maintains your separation from the social process that is less predictable and which you seem to find uncomfortable. You may want to consider that the comfort and confidence issues when you finally attempt to apply your studies will not be eliminated. You seem to be engaged in a sort of 'productive procrastination'.

As far as learning from trial and error, do you think I'd need something to try in the first place for that to work? Just like there are some who have learning disorders/dyslexia, wouldn't some neurologically have trouble picking up on these things naturally, but be able to learn similar to how you'd learn to play the piano or how those with learning disorders/dyslexia can be tutored?

In order to learn from trial and error, wouldn't you need to learn how to read body language and the person for you to pick up on what works? So what do you think about needing a starting point where body language is learned? Otherwise, wouldn't you just be at square one again?

As above, I think rules of thumb should be sufficient. Regardless of any syndromes or disorders a person has basic study into human behavior and body language should make for a sufficient base to work from with experience. Think of body language as being similar to organic vocal language rather than static maths. The meaning (value) of any particular word (variable) is better learned through rules of thumb and experience with the language than by constructing probability matrices.

 

[Galteeth]

So one time in New York I met this guy who called himself Mark Atony the street mack. He explained that he got laid every single night. He wasn't a bad looking guy per ce, not gorgeous, but well in that average range. He had a flirting philosophy. He would go up to every women he saw on the street and very assertively ask them if they wanted to have sex. They would of course, say no, and he'd keep asking, to the point of harassment. Didn't matter what the girl looked like, or if she was with a guy, or even if the guy she was with threatened him.
So i observed this street mack in action, taking care to keep my distance so that people wouldn't think I was a friend of his. I asked him, how often does this technique work. He said, "About 1 in 200"
Me "Huh"
Him "But I get laid every night!"
Me "And how many times a night do you get punched in the face?
Him "A few. Rarely more then a dozen."

Disclaimer: Don't try this at home kids!

 

[Galteeth]

To the OP: I will turn this around a bit, and read the signals you are sending out. You believe that you will find a way of analyzing people (specifically women's) attraction signals by the means of equations. People telling you the contrary will not change your belief. You will continue to seek confirmation of your belief. Eventually, you will find someone who will entertain your notion, and will give you some systematc approach to reading flirting signals. You will most likely believe what this person is telling you. You would prefer to find this person on some site that gives them some air of credibility in your mind, such as this one. However, this is unlikely, and you will continue your search elsewhere.

Signals read!

 

[27Thousand]

To the OP: I will turn this around a bit, and read the signals you are sending out. You believe that you will find a way of analyzing people (specifically women's) attraction signals by the means of equations. People telling you the contrary will not change your belief. You will continue to seek confirmation of your belief. Eventually, you will find someone who will entertain your notion, and will give you some systematc approach to reading flirting signals. You will most likely believe what this person is telling you. You would prefer to find this person on some site that gives them some air of credibility in your mind, such as this one. However, this is unlikely, and you will continue your search elsewhere.

Signals read!

Something you may want to consider, Galileo would come up with experiments to test peoples' ideas. Part of the Scientific Method is it has to be testable, use observation, and can be replicated/verified. How on Earth would building an equation which can use 5 or so variables to predict a 80% or whatever probability of being between such and such range not be testable? How can it not be based on observations (behaviors and non-verbal are that way and can be counted and put into a computer)? Definitely how would an equation not be able to be replicated or verifiable? (that's probably the easiest part of an equation)

They build mathematical models in the social science of economics all the time. Why not use many of the same building methods to create some for flirting and make them testable?

You would prefer to find this person on some site that gives them some air of credibility in your mind, such as this one. However, this is unlikely, and you will continue your search elsewhere.

Not for anyone to feel offended, but others in PF even seem to be acting like they don't know what falsification or even null hypotheses are.

 

[DanP]

Not for anyone to feel offended, but others in PF even seem to be acting like they don't know what falsification or even null hypotheses are.

Possibly, but they get laid.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To the OP: I will turn this around a bit, and read the signals you are sending out. You believe that you will find a way of analyzing people (specifically women's) attraction signals by the means of equations. People telling you the contrary will not change your belief. You will continue to seek confirmation of your belief. Eventually, you will find someone who will entertain your notion, and will give you some systematc approach to reading flirting signals. You will most likely believe what this person is telling you. You would prefer to find this person on some site that gives them some air of credibility in your mind, such as this one. However, this is unlikely, and you will continue your search elsewhere.

Signals read!

I suggested this idea elsewhere. If 27Thousand channeled his considerable persistence into simply asking girls to have sex with him he'd have more success, and a lot faster, than with his present strategy.

I think a lot of his problem is that he is too focused on reading how they already feel and is paying no attention to the idea of evoking sexual feelings in them from scratch. There are devices anyone can use. I happened to notice once that a simple, well placed use of the expletive, "F**k!" can take a woman from neutral to thinking about sex.

 

[Pythagorean]

Not for anyone to feel offended, but others in PF even seem to be acting like they don't know what falsification or even null hypotheses are.

But that's the whole point. Sociological conclusions are often hard to isolate for falsification. There's too many variables. This is why social sciences are considered "soft sciences" and some people even maim them "pseudoscience".

Personally, I hold out hope for social sciences, but they're strength is when dealing with masses. One-on-one interactions are much more diverse and unpredictable, and guessing what a single person is going to to next is virtually impossible.

 

[Galteeth]

Another thing I thought of: To the OP, if the concept of mathematical modeling of human interaction appeals to you (which it obviously does), you might start by looking into game theory. This doesnn't relate to body language, but it does have to do with the mathematical modeling of incentive and how people will likely respond to certain situations.

 

[27Thousand]

But that's the whole point. Sociological conclusions are often hard to isolate for falsification. There's too many variables. This is why social sciences are considered "soft sciences" and some people even maim them "pseudoscience".

Personally, I hold out hope for social sciences, but they're strength is when dealing with masses. One-on-one interactions are much more diverse and unpredictable, and guessing what a single person is going to to next is virtually impossible.

Something that you may want to consider, have you looked in a peer-review journal for Psychology? It's not the same Psychology that the media/self-help/Freud has. They use the Scientific Method and use peer-review. Another thing to consider, whether something is science or pseudo-science has more to do with the method used rather than the topic. If you look at the methodology used in Psychology peer-review versus the medical field, many methods are quite similar. They use the null hypothesis (which is definitely falsifiable), effect size, and often many of the research designs happen to be randomized experimental-control. Especially with randomized experimental-control, if the two groups of people are the same except for an independent variable and it affects a dependent variable, don't you think there is some sort of cause-effect going on. Although you can't observe mental processes (although cognitive neuroscience with brain scans has found some interesting things), you can observe behavior and you could still say the independent variable has an effect on observable dependent variable behavior. If something affects the verbal behavior of women to say how much they're interested, and affects how they respond later on to men, then it seems like it could be useful for something plus falsifiable with the null hypothesis if the "statistical power" is also high enough.

I think the main weakness is it's still in the Thomas Kuhn stage of pre-paradigmatic science, versus the hard sciences (although some will claim Physics with Relativity Theory versus Quantum is multi-paradigmatic even if Physics is very hard science). That doesn't mean peer-review Psychology doesn't use the Scientific Method and make it "testable" with null-hypotheses, peer-review etc.

Anyway, looking at many different data sets and trying to find equations/make graphics to visualize, I think may help me to some extent. I'm interested in quantitative psychology, because I'd think it would increase the "predictive power", falsification, makes it more difficult for someone to hide behind a weaker idea, plus allow one to find patterns (Psychology uses statistics to make it quantitative but that usually just stays within the peer-review study).

As far as the group versus individual principles, there is single-subject ABA research design. Although it's criticized for not detecting cause-effect like randomized experimental-control does, if used right it's better at "describing" tendencies at the individual level if run through many many individuals. Combining research methods together let's you test it from different angles. Behaviorists have used single-subject ABA to come up with quite universal patterns on reinforcement schedules and factors affecting reinforcement effectiveness. In the hard sciences they'll use many different methods to test something, so I was thinking of looking at many different data sets to find patterns, then brainstorming what may affect individual differences and then maybe test it by watching individuals discretely in public areas (kind of like single-subject). I don't have the resources not being a researcher so I can't follow-up with experimental-control as stage 3, but maybe if I ever become a researcher I can.

 

[27Thousand]

Another thing I thought of: To the OP, if the concept of mathematical modeling of human interaction appeals to you (which it obviously does), you might start by looking into game theory. This doesnn't relate to body language, but it does have to do with the mathematical modeling of incentive and how people will likely respond to certain situations.

Interesting. Didn't some concepts in game theory help someone get a Nobel Prize in Economics and someone got some other type of award in biology for also applying it?

 

[Galteeth]

Interesting. Didn't some concepts in game theory help someone get a Nobel Prize in Economics and someone got some other type of award in biology for also applying it?

Wouldn't surprise me. It has wide ranging applications.

 

[Evo]

Enough of these threads.