Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful w/ Women?

[AUK 1138]

Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful Women Due to Being "Shallow?"

As the title, Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful Women Due to Being "Shallow?", would suggest, my hypothesis is that we (or at the very least, "I") have had trouble talking and dealing with women because i got nervous before talking to her. this is a typical story when you think about it:

"Hey man, there's this girl i like i see in class and i need to know what to say to her."
"What do you mean "what to say to her?"
"Well, you know, talk. i haven't talked to her yet."
"Are you saying you haven't talk to this girl, but the reason you're scared to talk to her is that you like her?"
"Basically."
"How can you say you like her if you haven't talked to her?"
"Um... I dunno, i mean she's cute and she's in my class so she's probably at least kind of smart."
"But you like her based only upon what you've seen and observed from her?"
"yes, as it is the scientific way!"
"Can't you see you're only judging her upon her looks? Even while she may be smart, you still haven't said a word to her You probably haven't event made eye contact with her. does she know you exist?"
"Um... Well... I mean she's in the same class as me, i notice people in my classes. I see no reason as to why she wouldn't also possesses this ability."
"Tricky story there, Generic Creepy Physics Student's Name, truth is: you've been creepin' her on her looks, man. not cool. you should never like a girl based on what she looks like." And thus concludes the example of the story. I believe this nervousness is to do with liking or otherwise being sexually goal oriented with her. Thus, placing some mental place value in my brain based solely upon her looks and outward portrayal of her being. This is incredulously shallow behaviour that i deem problematic, so to say, with my principle motive of getting to know this female with interest in 'touching some boobs' while I'm at it.
point is, go talk to people. I'm saying this to myself. Anyone who also feels this to be a portrayal of their excuse for a 'sex-life' may choose to think about the topic and determine whether or not their own behaviour needs analyzing; i know mine does.

 

[julz]

I believe that you think too much, but at the same time, I like to analyze my own and other people's behavior.

First, think about the fundamental level of the contact between males and females. I know to some people it's horrible to say that, but we're in a science forum, so I'm not too afraid of the reactions: humans are nothing more but animals. We share the same goal as dogs,
monkeys, and any living being. We want to reproduce to make the race evolve. If that weren't our goal, then we wouldn't be here today.

Humans just tend to find more subtle ways to this, in order to respect each other and
then try to make the world a good place for everyone. If you don't eat your neighbor's
children, then he will not eat yours and so on.

I might be a bit far from the subject, my point was to say that talking to a girl/boy is something that comes "naturally". The nervousness, imho, comes from two things. The
first is the society we live in which made classes: popular girls/boys, nerds, etc.
The second is, still imho, based on some instinct: if I go talk to the girl, and my profile doesn't fit her needs, then I will be rejected. Rejection means no mating and no mating means no kids and thus the end of my "family". As I said above, it is a need brought by evolution. All the rest is details.

If we just reproduced and then died straight away, this would stop there. But here,
even after you have kids, you keep living for years. Thus comes the need to avoid pain.
Living in a group reduces the probability that you will be in pain. The reason we live
in a couple of 2 humans is something that I can't really explain though.

Ok, I don't know if I said anything useful or interesting about the subject. If not,
feel free to tell me and I'll delete my post ;)

Edit: Ok, I just realized that this thread was in the Relationships forum, when I thought it was in some part of the Biology forum. So I think you might not like my answer at all :P

 

[GeorginaS]

As the title, Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful Women Due to Being "Shallow?", would suggest, my hypothesis is that we (or at the very least, "I") have had trouble talking and dealing with women because i got nervous before talking to her. this is a typical story when you think about it:

Well, I'd be interested to know what I'm supposed to think about in this instance. I can honestly say that I don't understand a word of your question.

Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful Women Due to Being "Shallow?"

Are intelligent, socially awkward males unsuccessful women? That's possible, if I think about it, I guess. But I suppose, then, that that means that the converse is true that successful women are actually intelligent, socially awkward males? I don't think of myself as any of those things and I'm a relatively successful woman, as far as those things go. So.

But men are unsuccessful women "due to being shallow"? Sorry, I'm lost there. Who's shallow? The men who want to be women or the successful women who are actually socially awkward men?

Any help you want to provide would be welcome.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think he meant "Are intelligent, socially akward males unsuccessful with women due to being shallow".

 

[Evo]

I think he meant "Are intelligent, socially akward males unsuccessful with women due to being shallow".

Intelligent, socially awkward men are the opposite of shallow.

 

[BobG]

As the title, Are Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males Unsuccessful Women Due to Being "Shallow?", would suggest, my hypothesis is that we (or at the very least, "I") have had trouble talking and dealing with women because i got nervous before talking to her...with my principle motive of getting to know this female with interest in 'touching some boobs' while I'm at it.

What in the world does that story have to do with the title?

And that's a bizarre theory, anyway! You're infatuated with some girl you don't know, but hope is a lesbian, and that somehow makes you an unsuccessful woman?

You should write country songs. It will make you feel better.

Edit: At least I knew what forum I was in.

 

[GeorginaS]

I think he meant "Are intelligent, socially akward males unsuccessful with women due to being shallow".

Ooookay, but who is shallow, exactly?

 

[Pengwuino]

Intelligent, socially awkward men are the opposite of shallow.

Oh on the contrary! Being socially akward or intelligent in no way precludes someone from being shallow.

 

[Antiphon]

Here's a reality check for the sensitive fellows out there (I was one of you once.)

Males are attracted to looks. Females are attracted to a man's mastery over his environment. Shallow isn't even on the radar as a quality to be sought or avoided by either gender.

 

[AUK 1138]

Intelligent, socially awkward men are the opposite of shallow.

yes, 'With Women' is what i meant. As for my rebuttal to you, i would say that women think that because when these 'Intelligent, socially awkward men' actually do succeed with a woman, the female perceives these types of males to be mature and not-so-coincidentally, 'Intelligent' because again, not-so-coincidentally they are more 'Intelligent' and mature. However, failures are where they real problems lie and where this problem occurs. 'Shallow' may in fact too 'Harsh' a word, but i see a strong resemblance with it. So, i believe syntax and wording are at cause for our disagreement with my hypothesis.

 

[GeorginaS]

yes, 'With Women' is what i meant. As for my rebuttal to you, i would say that women think that because when these 'Intelligent, socially awkward men' actually do succeed with a woman, the female perceives these types of males to be mature and not-so-coincidentally, 'Intelligent' because again, not-so-coincidentally they are more 'Intelligent' and mature. However, failures are where they real problems lie and where this problem occurs. 'Shallow' may in fact too 'Harsh' a word, but i see a strong resemblance with it. So, i believe syntax and wording are at cause for our disagreement with my hypothesis.

Pardon me? As best I can tell, incoherence appears to be the issue here.

 

[AUK 1138]

Pardon me? As best I can tell, incoherence appears to be the issue here.

It's a sad day when one can't understand basic words and reasoning. I'm sorry you have to live like that. must be hell.

 

[Jawbreaker]

I have to agree with Julz. It's not necessarily shallow to be initially interested in someone based upon their physical appearance. We are in fact organisms following sets of actions that allow evolution to occur, i.e. looking for a mate based on their capacity to bear offspring as shown by physical attributes, or more subtly how "attractive" they are. I understand your ideas, somewhat; It may be important to also get a better vision of the person you find enticing by getting to know them personally. The problem with following this route initially with every person you encounter is that you may end up with a lot of friends you don't find appropriate as your significant other, or you may strike gold! I think this is highly unlikely if you're scared to talk to a pretty girl though :]

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a sad day when one can't understand basic words and reasoning. I'm sorry you have to live like that. must be hell.

Auk, you are indeed coming across as rather incoherent. The subject of the thread is the first stumbling block, not just because there's a key word missing but because it's awkwardly constructed the adjectives are ambiguous as to which noun they apply to. You might want to reconsider before accusing someone of having trouble understanding basic words and reasoning.

Perhaps the reason you aren't having luck with women because you keep insulting them before any real communication can happen...

 

[BobG]

I have to admit that at first I figured you must be a non-native speaker of English, but some of the other errors (not knowing how to close your italics, for example) made me decide otherwise.

 

[Mentallic]

I think he meant "Are intelligent, socially akward males unsuccessful with women due to being shallow".

Ooookay, but who is shallow, exactly?

Did you even bother to read the OP? While his title is quite misleading, it simply means you should read what he says in order to get a clear picture of it all.

Just because you are an intelligent, socially awkward male, doesn't mean anything when it comes to the way you are attracted to women. Some are shallow, some aren't.
Social awkwardness doesn't mean you wouldn't have any friends, and it's likely possible that you could find a girl to become friends with because you like her (or even like her after getting to know her).

By the way, if you realize you're socially awkward, wouldn't you at least try to change that?

 

[GeorginaS]

It's a sad day when one can't understand basic words and reasoning. I'm sorry you have to live like that. must be hell.

Interesting. I was honestly trying to understand what you're on about, and you are patently rude. Is that social awkwardness? That's a real question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Did you even bother to read the OP?

What the *** is going on with this thread?? You're accusing Georgina of not reading the OP? Of course she did; it's very labrynthine. It's taken a half doizen people in a dozen posts to tease out what the OP really meant to say!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While the idea is not very well communicated I found it pretty obvious that the OP was referring to males who are too timid to approach women being "shallow" because their desire to speak to said women, and their difficulty in accomplishing this, is based mostly if not completely on the female's looks. I think that the interest here is that we geeky nice guys tend to believe that we are less superficial, "and if only that hot chick would just notice us and give us a chance they might figure that out about us!"

Up until the last few posts I really believed that people were just yanking his chain about not understanding.

 

[GeorginaS]

Okay, SA, for real, here. Males who are too timid to approach women think that they -- as in *the men* -- are being shallow or that the women they approach are shallow? The socially awkward guys are shallow because they appreciate or attracted to a woman's appearance and that therefore makes the awkward guy shallow? Is that the question? For real? I'm asking.

I was joking a bit in the beginning, but I really can't tease out what the issue is, here. Being talked down to as if I'm some sort of imbecile because someone else can't write a coherent sentence is hardly appropriate. I'm more than willing to offer a mature, balanced woman's point of view if someone is asking a genuine question, but I can barely make sense of this fellow. And if rude comebacks are de rigueur with these fellows, then -- as Dave pointed out -- it's no wonder they experience problems dealing with women. The issue isn't social awkwardness, it's being condescending that's putting the kibosh on any relationship potential they may have.

Now, speaking to you, SA, you nice geeky guys think of yourselves as less superficial. Fine. Likely you are, long term. It's okay to own up to initial attraction to a woman being about appearances. Appearances only hold up for so long before people of substance -- both men and women -- require a bit more from the people they're involved with. I've met, dated, hung out with, worked with, some of the most stunning specimens of human beings you'd ever want to meet. Five minutes with those guys (male models) -- as potential dates -- and women (female models) as potential friends -- let me know whether or not I'd like to spend any further time with them. Looks got them to the table, who they are and what they're about and what they value kept them in my life, not the way they looked.

Similarly, I've met and known some -- by anyone's test -- less than classically physically attractive people who, over time, became more and more physically irresistible to me because of the incredibly bright, clever, intelligent, and warm people that they are. They lasted as relationships and friendships for far longer than the people who were immediate eye candy. That's not to say that the eye candy didn't catch my eye, because they did. And I don't think that was shallow of me, that's just simple aesthetics. You're naturally drawn to something/someone who looks appealing. So, no, not shallow, just the first step in the weeding out process. People of substance have always made my long-term list.

I can certainly answer what you asked, SA, and I hope I have, coherently. As for AUK 1138 and Mentalic, maybe if they get over themselves, they can cobble together a reasonable and polite idea and/or question and possibly get a reasonable and polite response. Women aren't that difficult to sort out. Being nice to us is a really, really good start.

If that wasn't what the OP meant to ask, it doesn't matter much to me any longer.

 

[xxChrisxx]

OP, you are unsuccessful with women because you don't have the balls to talk to them, or (most likely) screw it up when you do. Nothing more. Nothing to do with being 'shallow' or anything else.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Okay, SA, for real, here. Males who are too timid to approach women think that they -- as in *the men* -- are being shallow or that the women they approach are shallow? The socially awkward guys are shallow because they appreciate or attracted to a woman's appearance and that therefore makes the awkward guy shallow? Is that the question? For real? I'm asking.

Yes, I am fairly certain that is what the OP was inferring. It is possible that the OP is even more incoherent in communicating his ideas than I thought and I am wrong but I doubt that.

And I am sorry if you felt that I was at all supporting any abuse from the OP for your confusion. I was just saying I was a bit confused by the confusion.

Now, speaking to you, SA, you nice geeky guys think of yourselves as less superficial. Fine. Likely you are, long term. It's okay to own up to initial attraction to a woman being about appearances. Appearances only hold up for so long before people of substance -- both men and women -- require a bit more from the people they're involved with. I've met, dated, hung out with, worked with, some of the most stunning specimens of human beings you'd ever want to meet. Five minutes with those guys (male models) -- as potential dates -- and women (female models) as potential friends -- let me know whether or not I'd like to spend any further time with them. Looks got them to the table, who they are and what they're about and what they value kept them in my life, not the way they looked.

Similarly, I've met and known some -- by anyone's test -- less than classically physically attractive people who, over time, became more and more physically irresistible to me because of the incredibly bright, clever, intelligent, and warm people that they are. They lasted as relationships and friendships for far longer than the people who were immediate eye candy. That's not to say that the eye candy didn't catch my eye, because they did. And I don't think that was shallow of me, that's just simple aesthetics. You're naturally drawn to something/someone who looks appealing. So, no, not shallow, just the first step in the weeding out process. People of substance have always made my long-term list.

I can certainly answer what you asked, SA, and I hope I have, coherently. As for AUK 1138 and Mentalic, maybe if they get over themselves, they can cobble together a reasonable and polite idea and/or question and possibly get a reasonable and polite response. Women aren't that difficult to sort out. Being nice to us is a really, really good start.

If that wasn't what the OP meant to ask, it doesn't matter much to me any longer.

I get the impression that he is young and it seems to me that he is talking about a rather typical high school situation. The one where a shy boy crushes on the pretty girl in class but can not get up the gumption to actually speak to her then carries on about how he likes her so much and laments that she never seems to notice him. Unfortunately for these guys it is so often portrayed in movies, TV, and even music (Wheatus, I'm looking at you :grumpy:) that guys like them may actually wind up getting the cute popular girl to go out with them and that the cute popular chick is actually a sweet and wonderful girl.

It seems that the OP has been fortunate enough to realize that the only reason he likes these girls and suffers such anxiety about them is that they are pretty and that is the whole of his attachment. If he actually did speak to her he may find that she isn't all that nice, isn't very bright, or is completely uninteresting but he's not going to find out if he is too nervous to speak to her because he thinks that she's so amazing based on nothing but the fact that she is pretty.

From what I gather he is hypothesizing that this is "shallow" behavior and were he to stop being "shallow" and judging the worthiness of these girls based on their looks then he would not have this issue. It does not seem he is so much asking a question as wondering what we think of his epiphany.

He does have a bit of a point and I am sure that any shy geeky lady friends of his who have crushes on him will be happy for his realization (Yes, you are guilty too Taylor Swift :grumpy:).

 

[xxChrisxx]

Surely the word shallow is causing all the problems here, as it's totally the wrong word to use.

Shy is the best description of how the OP is acting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Surely the word shallow is causing all the problems here, as it's totally the wrong word to use.

Shy is the best description of how the OP is acting.

He is referring, though, to the reason why he is shy with these girls. He is shy with them because he has a crush on them, he has a crush on them because he thinks they are pretty. If he has never spoken to them he obviously knows little to nothing about them and has no basis for his crush, and hence his shyness and anxiety, other than the mere fact that they are pretty. If you think about it getting yourself all worked up about a girl to the point that you can not even approach her for no reason other than that she is pretty is kinda shallow.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I thought he was referring to success with the ladies. He is not unsuccessful with women becuase (due is the word used in the OP and title) of shallowness as is indicated in the title, he's unsuccessful becuse he's shy. Although I'll admit the cavaleer use of English had me confused, so I may be missing the point.And regarding it being shallow to be attracted based on looks: They always say that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. But if the cover is all you have you have to start somewhere.

 

[DaveC426913]

And regarding it being shallow to be attracted based on looks: They always say that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. But if the cover is all you have you have to start somewhere.

In this sense, I think women tend to be smarter than men.

Men will tend to be satisfied that looking at the cover is enough to make them consider taking it to the cash.

Women, if all they have access to is covers, will just not choose a book. It is not until they are in a situation where they can browse some books and get to know them, that they will decide there is a choice to make at all.

i.e.: yes, men in this sense may be shallower in that they will happily judge a book on insufficient information.

 

[GeorginaS]

Okay then. If nothing else, I feel vindicated about my "shallowness" word-use confusion. Perhaps, Chris, the OP thinks it's shallow to be shy?

Thanks for further unpacking that idea for me, SA. I think there ought to be some sort of rule in this particular forum where an OP has to introduce themselves and give us their sex and age so we can tailor our discussions to their particular stage in life.

The relationship discussions I have with the 12-year-olds in my life are different from the relationship discussions I have with the 20-something-year-olds and the 30-something-year-olds, and the 40-something-year-olds, the 50s and the 60s and the 70s. Huh. It just occurred to me that I have discussions about love relationships with people in a very wide range of ages. That's pretty cool. But anyway. I well remember high school angst. If that's what we're talking about, well, okay then. And as soon as I know who's supposed to be being shallow, I'd comprehend much better. Because if the OP thinks that he's not scoring because he's being shallow, then he's making up excuses for why he's not succeeding.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Okay then. If nothing else, I feel vindicated about my "shallowness" word-use confusion. Perhaps, Chris, the OP thinks it's shallow to be shy?

Frankly, I think the OP is just having a whine becuase he can't get any.

Because if the OP thinks that he's not scoring because he's being shallow, then he's making up excuses for why he's not succeeding.

I agree 100%.

 

[AUK 1138]

Auk, you are indeed coming across as rather incoherent. The subject of the thread is the first stumbling block, not just because there's a key word missing but because it's awkwardly constructed the adjectives are ambiguous as to which noun they apply to. You might want to reconsider before accusing someone of having trouble understanding basic words and reasoning.

Perhaps the reason you aren't having luck with women because you keep insulting them before any real communication can happen...

While i don't necessarily agree my posts are incoherent, i do accept that i was overly aggressive and out of line in my response. my basic point was basically that nerdy guys tend to obsess over one or a few women and usually before they've met them due to being too nervous to go talk. I'm not saying being shallow is inherently bad, i just think that being shallow and too nervous to talk are the main problems for most of us nerdy boys.

 

[AUK 1138]

Interesting. I was honestly trying to understand what you're on about, and you are patently rude. Is that social awkwardness? That's a real question.

i was out of line. i apologize.

 

[GeorginaS]

While i don't necessarily agree my posts are incoherent, i do accept that i was overly aggressive and out of line in my response. my basic point was basically that nerdy guys tend to obsess over one or a few women and usually before they've met them due to being too nervous to go talk. I'm not saying being shallow is inherently bad, i just think that being shallow and too nervous to talk are the main problems for most of us nerdy boys.

I'll go with Chris' suspicion and ask you what you mean by the word "shallow". Because what you just wrote -- which was entirely clear -- suggests that maybe you mean the word "shy" rather than shallow.

But anyway, that obsessing happens to everyone. Or most people, I'd say, about an awful lot of situations. Someone's important to you so you rehearse over and over in your head what you might say, would like to say, how you could approach, when would be a good time. You run various scenarios in circles in your mind, "If I say this, would she say that? Or that? And then what?" And on and on and on. And you can drive yourself bonkers with that stuff. And just about everyone I know -- geeky or not -- does it.

Here's a hint: it doesn't help. The biggest help I've found is to ask myself, "What's the absolute worst thing that can happen?" If it doesn't entail me dropping dead on the spot, then the only thing to do is do the thing. Yes, your knees feel like rubber, and yes, your voice promptly leaves you and all you can manage to do is squeak, and the outcome may not be what you'd hoped for or anticipated. But at least you did it. That accomplishment in itself feels great and makes each successive try easier because you've discovered one thing for certain and that's that you won't drop dead on the spot.

i was out of line. i apologize.

That was really big of you. Thank you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll go with Chris' suspicion and ask you what you mean by the word "shallow". Because what you just wrote -- which was entirely clear -- suggests that maybe you mean the word "shy" rather than shallow.

But anyway, that obsessing happens to everyone. Or most people, I'd say, about an awful lot of situations. Someone's important to you so you rehearse over and over in your head what you might say, would like to say, how you could approach, when would be a good time. You run various scenarios in circles in your mind, "If I say this, would she say that? Or that? And then what?" And on and on and on. And you can drive yourself bonkers with that stuff. And just about everyone I know -- geeky or not -- does it.

There are people who are just plain "shy" and have trouble talking to anyone they do not know, and sometimes even people that they do know. Most guys though are "shy" around women in particular, especially the ones they find attractive (I am sure the same goes for many women as well).

Your second paragraph really points out the issue. "Someone's important to you so..." Certainly it makes sense that if you place a high value on your interaction with that person, and their perception of you, that you will be nervous and/or shy. There is a sense of risk, that you may lose something, if things go wrong. But one might ask themselves why it is that they place such importance on this person and their response and what it is one may potentially lose. If you have never spoken to this person before and know little to nothing about them why are they important and what could you conceivably lose? AUK's position seems to be that you are evaluating that person's import based on looks and that what one might be losing is really nothing more than the opportunity to date a "hot chick/stud". By this hypothesis one is shy with pretty ladies because one has placed a high value on their person for superficial reasons, which would constitute "shallow". If one were to refrain from "judging the book by its cover", to borrow from Dave, then one may find that they are no longer shy with that person. Hence "Intelligent, Socially Awkward Males [Are] Unsuccessful [With] Women Due to Being Shallow", because if they were to refrain from placing a higher value on women because of their looks they would be less shy with them and more capable of speaking to them.

 

[AUK 1138]

I'll go with Chris' suspicion and ask you what you mean by the word "shallow". Because what you just wrote -- which was entirely clear -- suggests that maybe you mean the word "shy" rather than shallow.

That is basically my point. I'm saying that being "shy" with women stems from being shallow. by shallow i mean placing a value on looks or observed interactions of a person as opposed to actually talking to and getting to know the individual. that is what i consider to be an extrapolation of the word "shallow" and therefore serves as the basis for me making this thread.


TheStatutoryApe pretty much nailed my point. you can look at what i wrote and what he wrote and use them to make sense of what I'm saying if i was too difficult.

 

[creepypasta13]

intelligent, socially awkward men are definitely looked down upon harshly by society.

 

[Phrak]

That is basically my point. I'm saying that being "shy" with women stems from being shallow. by shallow i mean placing a value on looks or observed interactions of a person as opposed to actually talking to and getting to know the individual. that is what i consider to be an extrapolation of the word "shallow" and therefore serves as the basis for me making this thread.


TheStatutoryApe pretty much nailed my point. you can look at what i wrote and what he wrote and use them to make sense of what I'm saying if i was too difficult.

Get over shallow.

Men are pigs, right?

Fail. Men are stallions. There are basically two things men have on their minds: 1) sex and 2) driving too fast, or the human equivalent. We are simple critters.

Then there are us guys, such as myself, who live more inside their own heads. We are nerdy; less likely to be prancing about at high speed and attracting the notice of females to accomplish task 1).

At the risk of starting a sex war, I suggest that women who suggest that "men are pigs" are self-projecting. Bring it on, ladies. I'm well armed for this argument should it be forthcoming.

What do women want? This is not a rhetorical question. They want what you have. In fact they have a tendency to get very enamored at the thought of acquiring your labours, which brings us back to the whole prancing thing.

You have no reason to be shy.