hURR dURR dERP said:
Well, if you believe that something inherently subjective like desirability can be objectively measured in any but the most vague of ways then yes, this is a rather pointless discussion since it means we're arguing from two completely different and irreconcilable standpoints. Not that that's going to stop me from arguing because, well, I believe I mentioned the "I'm an argumentative jackass" flaw in my first post.
You can't really prove that desirability is "inherently subjective" simply by saying it is. Parables like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" aside, there are many aspects of desirability which are entirely objectively measurable. Symmetry of the face (which is a huge factor in physical attractiveness) is entirely objective. Simply putting your position as the irrevocable "truth" with words like "inherently" doesn't make it so.
hURR dURR dERP said:
While I do believe there is such a thing as a "better match", something like that is entirely up to the other person to decide. I might like girl X better than girl Y, but that's more a reflection of myself than either of the girls. Unless you're willing to make assumptions about what they're thinking you're not going to find out just like that. While there are always certain things that are regarded as desirable or undesirable by 'society' (itself some vague and unrepresentative entity), this is hardly an individual thing. Of course, when comparing yourself to another you might believe that other person has a better chance of "making it" than you do. Should this affect you? Of course not. While making the observation isn't necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion letting that observation decide your course of action is.
We're still debating the same point. You believe there's no objectively "more desirable" trait or person, that it's all about someone finding someone else who is perfect in their eyes, love story, ect. But that's not the reality of the world. First, society does decide what attractive qualities (physically, mentally, and in all other regards) are. You can buck that, but most people don't. You believe that whether you like girl X more than girl Y is entirely a matter of subjective analysis and of
your wants, needs, and desires, and thus not at all reflective on the girls in question. You put the locus of control for the outcome of being asked out on the person who was asked, I put it on the person asking. If you ask someone out who is more desirable than you are, you will be rejected ninety-nine times out of one-hundred.
hURR dURR dERP said:
Of course dating sites use checklists, but that's because without a natural environment to make personal contacts, you've gotta give people something to connect to the person on the other side of the screen, and apart from having a personal chat with everyone on the site, something like that gives you at least something to start with. While some people approach dating from a very practical point of view, it's simply not the case that you can tell what people would do good together just by adding up certain scores to add up to the "worth" of the people involved. That's, as you said, the core of the argument. From personal experience and from what I see around me, there's simply no objective way of calculating such things.
Well, we can keep beating the dead horse of whether it's possible to objectively measure desirability and worth in a relationship until we're both dead, but it won't change the reality that there are ways to objectively measure "worth" in a dating sense. Wealth is worth more than poverty, attractiveness is worth more than unattractiveness, intelligence is worth more than stupidity, svelte people are worth more than fat people, it's a pretty simple metric.
hURR dURR dERP said:
Comparing a date or relationship to the Ebola virus is funny, but inaccurate. If you've got ebole you'll die in the (most likely) worst case, and even if you somehow survive you'll be really sick for a while, so it's best not to get Ebola. If you ask someone you think is out of your league out on a date you'll get turned down in the worst case, and if you somehow get the date you might have a great time, with a shot at something bigger. The analogy just doesn't fly.
Wow did you miss the point by a wide margin. You focused on the part of the debate you could win, and ignored the actual analogy. Thus, yes, you win on the point you made (that being rejected is not the same as death), but you must allow my point to flow through. Thus, you accept that it is possible to know with a good amount of certainty the outcome of a dating scenario before it plays out. Thanks.
hURR dURR dERP said:
As I said, it's one thing to accept your flaws, it's another to say "I'm probably not good enough for her (or him, whatever), so I don't have a chance here." You're just talking yourself down, even if you're right. I'm not saying everyone should be like "I'm totally awesome and I can do whatever and whoever I want" (that would be arrogance, or at least massive overconfidence). I'm saying everyone should be like "I like this person so I'm going to make a move", regardless of what you think your chances are.
I understand your distinction, and you seem to have rode right past my point. I don't disagree with playing it to the hilt and going after a girl you don't have much of a shot with
if you understand that going into it what creates a problem is when people (ignorant or ignoring of their faults) actually believe themselves to have a chance, and are crestfallen when they lose an unwinable battle. If you know your chances are somewhere in the same category as winning the lottery while being struck by lightning and being eaten by a shark, ask away. But people don't do that, they present the situation to themselves as "I'm awesome, so she should like me" ignoring the fact that they aren't as desirable.
hURR dURR dERP said:
I honestly don't understand how you'd compare a relationship to a computer. You're putting it in a way that suggests relationships are something you can be calculated and predicted. If so, good luck trying to come up with the formula for your perfect girl. Real life experience tells me otherwise though.
I'm curious why you keep falling back on "real life experience" as a defender of your points. Is it because you believe I don't have real world experience, or because you think your experience is more extensive? I can all but promise you I have as much experience both primarily (in the girls I've befriended, the ones I've dated, and the ones I've been in relationships with) and vicariously (through friends I've helped through drama in their lives), and my belief is based just as much in real-world experience. My belief is this:
All of human interaction is predicable, but complex. Your dismissive, condescending, and completely irrelevant "good luck trying to come up with a formula, fnar fnar" is out of place. I have no need to "make" a perfect girl Weird Science style, I (unlike you) accept that if I did, she wouldn't want me. Instead, I can simply say, I have a good idea how things will end up.
hURR dURR dERP said:
For your last question: It doesn't even matter. Honestly. Ever heard of self-fulfilling prophesies? If you approach someone thinking "This is probably going to fail", you're already halfway to failure. Confidence goes a long way. Sure, experience may tell you that this type of girl won't like a guy like you, but you'll never know until you at least speak to her, and negative thinking (no matter how justified you believe it to be) is just going to make things that much more difficult for you. That's what I mean by limiting yourself.
I've heard of them, but the fact that they exist doesn't actually prove that anything "limiting" yourself would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're falling into the same correlation trap most people fall into: you see that confident guys get girls, and confident girls get guys, and thus say "confidence, therefore, causes success", but that's not how it goes. You know who's confident, guys and girls who are more desirable. You believe that positive thinking can somehow change the objective reality of the situation, and that makes you sound like an idiot. Go back to reading "The Secret", and tell me when you win the lottery just by thinking you deserve to.
