Dating for Nerds: A Shy Guy's Guide to Meeting Women

[Moonbear]

Because I defined it that way. I addressed, but then shunted aside, the conventional understanding of someone who thinks they are "God's Gift to Women," Then pulled a switcheroo, offering an "alternative" description of an alleged different sort of "God's Gift" , which was, in fact, culled from things I've read about sociopaths. Then the punchline: 3.) "It's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths."

I don't know what to tell you, Moonbear. That post was a witticism. Georgina grasped the gist of it. It's not intended to be accurate. It's intended to be true. The two sentences previous to this are another witticism. A witticism is "a cleverly witty and often biting or ironic remark"*. Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.



*Merriam-Websters

Oh, so it was just a failed attempt at humor? Okay. We can leave it at that then. I don't get it, but if that's all it was, no sense pursuing it further.

 

[Redbelly98]

You failed time and again to explain your generalization of "god's gift" to sociopath. Id pretty much want to know again why do you make this generalization. On what basis ?

I ask you again. Can you please explain ? This time, please, leave apart smart remarks, assumption on my upset state, whatever. Just do what you are asked to, explain your statement.

Can you please ?

As Moonbear points out, the explanation has been given already:

I'm not seeing how someone who believes they are god's gift to women is a sociopath either.

Because I defined it that way. I addressed, but then shunted aside, the conventional understanding of someone who thinks they are "God's Gift to Women," Then pulled a switcheroo, offering an "alternative" description of an alleged different sort of "God's Gift" , which was, in fact, culled from things I've read about sociopaths. Then the punchline: 3.) "It's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths."

I don't know what to tell you, Moonbear. That post was a witticism. Georgina grasped the gist of it. It's not intended to be accurate. It's intended to be true. The two sentences previous to this are another witticism. A witticism is "a cleverly witty and often biting or ironic remark"*. Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.
*Merriam-Websters

Time to move on please.

 

[27Thousand]

This thread has been highly entertaining thank you.
Just for the record I definitely think I'm a gift to women. Not from god though... from my mother. I'm very cocky and quiet arrogant when it comes to women but I can't say I've ever had a problem with them.

bahahaha, some people on this forum crack me up. 27thousand, zooby, DanP haha man epic thread.

This is not supposed to be entertaining, but rather we're serious

I mean like seriously, mathematical equations for dating would be da bomb!

 

[27Thousand]

I'm excited!

Now I found this interesting! : Online Tutorials on Mathematical Psychology http://www.mathpsyc.uni-bonn.de/tutorials.htm" I didn't even know that existed, but there's a field in psychology that works on creating mathematical models to explain/predict! Wow!

So as far as being creative goes, Newton took others' mathematical ideas and then combined them in unique/useful ways. I need to use R computer language for Statistics to teach myself the different techniques on that Mathematical Website link, then I'll use playful imagination to see what I can come up with in using math for flirting!

As far as being creative goes, I emailed some professors who publish in peer-review journals and asked them about mathematical equations to predict whether a woman is flirting. They said they hadn't heard of someone who's done that before. So this could be useful to create these equations!

 

[Sorry!]

This is not supposed to be entertaining, but rather we're serious

I mean like seriously, mathematical equations for dating would be da bomb!

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

 

[27Thousand]

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

Post 58 explains and clears up the confusion on this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472787&postcount=58"

Just like some have learning disorders/dyslexia, what is to keep some from neurologically having problems with using gut feeling and instinct to pick up on social/flirting situations? For people like this, it's utterly useless for them to go on gut feeling and instinct. If they're good at Science, then they may need to take that other medium, just like some are visual learners while others are other types of learners. You know what I'm saying?

 

[DanP]

As Moonbear points out, the explanation has been given already:Time to move on please.

Sorry, that is not explanation, man. It's anything but an explanation, for that matter. It fails to address why the poster put a full category of man in the sociopath category. It's a joke.

 

[Redbelly98]

Yes, it was a joke. Or an attempt at one. You don't have to find it funny, or agree with it.

Get over it.

 

[DanP]

Yes, it was a joke. Or an attempt at one. You don't have to find it funny, or agree with it.

Get over it.

Ok, then you will understand that I required an explanation, not a joke.

Get over it.

 

[BobG]

The etc part is important.

I love etc. Etc is the best part of a relationship. Unless she turns out to be some sort of idiot and is interested in ect instead. I hate women that are into ect instead of etc.

Don't stick pins through their wings and tack them down to styrofoam board and stare at them through a magnifying glass.

I agree with this, too. Not only is this a big turn-off for most women, it will get you tossed into a maximum security prison for life.

Trying to calculate the whole thing just makes the situation awkward and weird.

Alas! Unfortunately, this statement is true, as well. There's graphs that clearly show this.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. I'm becoming kind of turned off to the whole idea of marriage. It seems like that's something that can quickly get out of hand.

 

[tmyer2107]

This thread has been highly entertaining thank you.

I agree, very entertaining indeed. Although I probably should have been working rather than reading through all of this.

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

I agree here as well. You can learn a lot more through actual experience with women, not by running them through some statistical model in your head.

Post 58 explains and clears up the confusion on this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472787&postcount=58"

Just like some have learning disorders/dyslexia, what is to keep some from neurologically having problems with using gut feeling and instinct to pick up on social/flirting situations? For people like this, it's utterly useless for them to go on gut feeling and instinct. If they're good at Science, then they may need to take that other medium, just like some are visual learners while others are other types of learners. You know what I'm saying?

Like I said above, practice makes perfect. Even if you do have some neurological issue with picking up on a women's intentions, working on overcoming that issue through practice and experience is going to be a lot more beneficial to you than trying to analyze them and run them through your equations.

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions. Some may be better than others but most of us will always find ourselves completely confused more often than we would like. If I ran off to write equations everytime I misread a girl's body language I would still be writing them today. And I'd probably be single.

 

[Sorry!]

I think most guys are born with a 'disorder' that doesn't let them clearly see womens intentions with them then. The difference between some guys is that they are scared to get embarassed. This has very little to do with the GIRLS intentions with YOU it has to do with your intentions with the girls.

Back when I was single everytime I would go talk to a girl I would hardly know anything abotu their intentions with me (unless they kept like looking over or something) I would just find someone I thought looked cute and go on over there and TALK to them. It does not take a rocket scientists to strike up a conversation. Of course if you were autistic or something of the sort we may have a problem. But beign able to read a girls intentions? Come on, I feel like your juts making excuses to make yourself feel like it's ok to be a chicken.

 

[DanP]

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions. Some may be better than others but most of us will always find ourselves completely confused more often than we would like. If I ran off to write equations everytime I misread a girl's body language I would still be writing them today. And I'd probably be single.

There might be some truth in this whole theorem and equations of sex and body language. I gave it a very through thought and I started to lay the axioms down:

AXIOM 1
"no man has an erectile dysfunction"

AXIOM 2
"everyone is going to get laid sooner or later"

THEOREM 1

" If she is naked and her legs are on your shoulders, you will have intercourse."

 

[DanP]

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions.

This is an A++ post. For a man ,the only way to get even remotely close to 100% in understanding women is to get daily massive doses of estrogens intravenous.

And this is a great thing !

 

[BobG]

AXIOM 1
"no man has an erectile dysfunction"

This is incorrect. Erectile dysfunction is the reason Manny Ramirez was taking gonadotropins LH and HCG, which are most commonly used by women as fertility drugs. While mainly prescribed for females, they also stimulate testosterone production for men with erectile dysfuntion if the erectile dysfuntion is caused by a testosterone deficiency (a condition that's a common side effect of steroid use).

AXIOM 2
"everyone is going to get laid sooner or later"

This is only true if AXIOM 3 is "all humans are reincarnated after they die". At least I hope it's true. Maybe hell is to be eternally reincarnated into a person who can never get laid.

THEOREM 1

" If she is naked and her legs are on your shoulders, you will have intercourse."

Which lifetime? This one? Next one? The one after the next one? (Not to be impatient or anything, but I really need to know).

 

[DanP]

This is incorrect. Erectile dysfunction is the reason Manny Ramirez was taking gonadotropins LH and HCG, which are most commonly used by women as fertility drugs. While mainly prescribed for females, they also stimulate testosterone production for men with erectile dysfuntion if the erectile dysfuntion is caused by a testosterone deficiency (a condition that's a common side effect of steroid use).

Did he really had an ED, or was taking various things and estrogen blockers to recover faster from training ? Kinda common with many athletes. Various forms of Tamoxifen are commonly used around here by male athletes.

 

[GeorginaS]

http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-12-05/

 

[27Thousand]

http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-12-05/

As far as working, if I base it on research that beats the null, then I'll get some sort of patterns going. The only possible concern, how strong/weak will these equations be? If I keep on tweaking at it/looking for new areas of info, then I might come up with something decent. By looking at many studies/data sets, I could come up with something not one of them alone could come up with (Aristotle said the whole is more than the sum of its parts). If the equation has predictive value (important in Science) and is falsifiable, then why not? Even if it says "Given these 5 variables, there is a 80% probability it'll be between this and this range", it would be useful for flirting technology to come up with it.

 

[27Thousand]

Didn't mathematical models work for Galileo and Newton?

 

[whs]

Didn't mathematical models work for Galileo and Newton?

Correct, but for worth while ideas.

Don't like to be rash, but using math to 'read' someone for dating/flirting is pointless and a horrible idea. It shows that you have a complete miss-understanding of basic human communication.

You keep posting random graphs and then go on to say that you want to tweak it by "adding calculus in" or "adding <insert random branch of math> in" which doesn't even make sense, showing you don't understand the math behind what you are attempting to say.

How about you actually do one of these "experiments" and come back when you actually have some results instead of just posting the same graphs and subjects in many different threads?

I'm sure some people here would love to hear how you wasted your time.

whs, OUT.

 

[27Thousand]

Correct, but for worth while ideas.

You're not saying human relationships are not worthwhile? Please tell me there's a misunderstanding here.

You keep posting random graphs and then go on to say that you want to tweak it by "adding calculus in" or "adding <insert random branch of math> in" which doesn't even make sense, showing you don't understand the math behind what you are attempting to say.

I have a minor in Statistics. I hope you're not saying the various curve-fitting techniques they teach you in Statistics are false. Keep in mind it's brought much success to the field of economics and other areas. It's also being developed into a field called Mathematical Psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_psychology"
http://www.mathpsyc.uni-bonn.de/tutorials.htm"

Although many in the field of Psychology don't pay attention to it (yet), it was the same way for Newton. Tons of people were thinking of applying mathematics to the natural world and some were successful in some situations, but Newton went out and made it wide spread and rocked the joint. Why not do the same with flirting? Remember, many of the great people throughout history said innovation is only so much inspiration and mostly actually carrying it out and persistence. If I really drive that part for flirting strategies?

 

[27Thousand]

Some food for thought, didn't Isaac Newton say that mathematical models would eventually be applied to human beings and how they think? If we all put effort toward these models, wouldn't that be dedicating this effort to a good cause, praising Isaac Newton? He's our friend. That would seem appropriate for a place called PhysicsForums, you know what I'm saying?

 

[27Thousand]

then go on to say that you want to tweak it by "adding calculus in" or "adding <insert random branch of math> in" which doesn't even make sense, showing you don't understand the math behind what you are attempting to say.

Something you may not have considered, statisticians are constantly finding even better methods for curve fitting with data, just because one says they may try tweaking the details of the math doesn't mean they don't understand.

Even with the many many standard curve fitting techniques, those who make mathematical models still will tweak certain details by adding other things to it.

If I don't do that, even if my equation works well don't you think you'd probably just dismiss it saying I used statistical techniques and so I should have been original instead, even if it turns out to be a useful equation? Newton took other peoples' ideas which already existed, combined them together, and tweaked them, until he got some significant outcomes. It's a must to get critics to turn a way.

 

[Galteeth]

One note about foreign girls visiting: This is a very challenging demographic! For some reason, the "attractive european foreigner" seem to ring some subconscious sexual whistle for men. These girls are getting hit on all the time. Go for it, but don't be discouraged if it doesn't work out. (This also applies for American girls visiting foreign countries.)

 

[whs]

You're not saying human relationships are not worthwhile? Please tell me there's a misunderstanding here.

I have a minor in Statistics. I hope you're not saying the various curve-fitting techniques they teach you in Statistics are false. Keep in mind it's brought much success to the field of economics and other areas. It's also being developed into a field called Mathematical Psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_psychology"
http://www.mathpsyc.uni-bonn.de/tutorials.htm"

Although many in the field of Psychology don't pay attention to it (yet), it was the same way for Newton. Tons of people were thinking of applying mathematics to the natural world and some were successful in some situations, but Newton went out and made it wide spread and rocked the joint. Why not do the same with flirting? Remember, many of the great people throughout history said innovation is only so much inspiration and mostly actually carrying it out and persistence. If I really drive that part for flirting strategies?

I never said the contrary. I'm sorry you assumed all of the above.

Good luck.

 

[Moonbear]

Some food for thought, didn't Isaac Newton say that mathematical models would eventually be applied to human beings and how they think? If we all put effort toward these models, wouldn't that be dedicating this effort to a good cause, praising Isaac Newton? He's our friend. That would seem appropriate for a place called PhysicsForums, you know what I'm saying?

Mathematical models are applied to human behavior. They're used for things like marketing research. The MAJOR FLAW in your ideas that you keep overlooking or ignoring or refusing to accept is that models describe POPULATION behavior, NOT individual behavior. If you have a minor in statistics, you should understand the difference between populations and individuals in data sets. You should also understand that means that while you might be able to predict that in a large crowd, roughly a percentage of people will act in a particular way to a particular situation, the models will NOT tell you WHICH people will act that way.

The work I did for my Ph.D. involved studies of animal behavior where I had a LOT more control over variables than in a typical population of humans, and I still could not guarantee a particular male or female would act in a specific way at a specific time given a specific stimulus. I could only tell you within a 95% confidence interval that a particular behavior would happen more often in response to a particular stimulus than if that stimulus was not present. This is a great thing in a setting like an animal breeding program where we don't care that one specific cow is going to breed at a particular time to a particular bull, but rather that out of an entire herd of cattle, we'll get MORE cows to breed to at least one of the bulls with a particular treatment than if we do nothing.

So, if you want to set up a dating service, and you figure out that some particular thing is going to improve successes of matches, then that's a great use of a mathematical model of behavior. But, if you think you're ever going to have 100% success on the first try every time, or that you can walk into a bar and spot THE ONE PERFECT woman to ask out, who is guaranteed to accept your offer, you're off on a wild goose chase. You're more likely to have success in getting a date if you go out to places where women congregate and start asking them out than if you waste all your time obsessing over some mathematical model. You're also more likely to get them to KEEP going out with you if you DON'T bore them silly or irritate them with harping over your mathematical model when talking with them.

 

[Pyrrhus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0xgjUhEG3U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0xgjUhEG3U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I saw this a few minutes ago, and it reminded me of this thread

 

[GeorginaS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0xgjUhEG3U&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k0xgjUhEG3U&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I saw this a few minutes ago, and it reminded me of this thread

That's perfect!

 

[DaveC426913]

I saw this a few minutes ago, and it reminded me of this thread

And that, my icosaheptakilofriend, is a portryal of a person with Asperger's.

 

[GeorginaS]

And that, my icosaheptakilofriend, is a portryal of a person with Asperger's.

That's a clip from a fairly popular teevee show, is it not? Surely they don't have a character on the show who mocks someone with Asperger's. Or, I don't know. I'm asking, not asserting anything.

I just know that Zoobyshoe suggested Asperger's, and 27Thousand has repeated on almost every thread I've seen him on lately about wanting to write some sort of formula for reading body language and social situations with women.