Why do some women feel the need to play games in dating?

[causalset]

This is a situation that happened back in 2005. I never talked to her ever since, nor am I in love with her. I am just mad at the principle that she felt a need to abide within a framework of a certain "game" and "rules". Here is the thread that describes the situation in more detail: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt9507.html

 

[Pythagorean]

Uhh yeah... don't let that PU crap warp your mind.

 

[cristo]

Well, firstly, from what I read there, she seems a nice person, and really doesn't seem like someone who was playing games. It seems to me that you hardly knew each other, yet somehow wanted a relationship with her and, when she said she was with someone else, you couldn't accept that. In fact, after the emails you sent to her (in the above link after the fourth "myself"), I'm amazed she even bothered replying-- you can't launch into an attack at someone because they don't want to be in a relationship with you. I also agree with her comment that you can't use your Aspergers as an excuse for everything.

 

[causalset]

Well, firstly, from what I read there, she seems a nice person, and really doesn't seem like someone who was playing games.

By the word "game" I don't mean a childish game, but I mean some system with rules. For example, when you play chess, you can't move a rook diagonally. No good reason, just the rules of the game. So I feel that she treats dating in the same way. She is simply not allowed to be with someone whom she has previously placed in a "friends ladder". That is why her apologies are always in a past tense, because it is simply assumed that her placing me on friends ladder in the past -- even if she was wrong -- would disqualify me now, simply because of these rules.

It seems to me that you hardly knew each other, yet somehow wanted a relationship with her

That was a dating site so it is what its for. Now, I agree with you on "we hardly knew each other" point. I believe relatioships should go slowly. But the implication of that same principle is that decisions to reject someone should be slow as well. But she didn't follow the latter: she told me we are not a match right on the second conversation. So of course I protest to that.

and, when she said she was with someone else, you couldn't accept that.

She didn't say she was with someone else. She only said she was considering that person. In fact, during our last conversation -- the one with emails -- I specifically asked her if she was with that person, and she told me she was single (you can read it in one of her replies). Now, that last conversation was in Novemnber, and the time we first met was in June, and she claims to have met that guy few days before me. So, she clearly wasn't with him throughout this whole half a year. On the other hand, I know that after another year she did end up being with him; but that was long after the exchanges I am talking about.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I also agree with her comment that you can't use your Aspergers as an excuse for everything.

So far you have uesd your aspergers as an excuse for:

Not following instructions.
Being racist. ('Get back to China')
Attempting to manipulate (you even used this word several times) her into: feelign sorry for you (which makes women sympahise, but does not attact them). Then trying to go out with you.
Turning women off. (From what your own post says, she was never really on to begin with)

This is a situation that happened back in 2005. I never talked to her ever since, nor am I in love with her. I am just mad at the principle that she felt a need to abide within a framework of a certain "game" and "rules". Here is the thread that describes the situation in more detail:

There are no rules, its not a board game. She will do whatever she wants besaed on how she feels.

You tried to manipulate her feelings to suit your needs. People are not stupid, they can tell when thye are being manupulated, and they don't like it. I don't think she was ever attracted to you and the lies were to try and spare your feelings from being hurt.

May I suggest that your asbergers is not responsible for 'turneing her off', but is probably responsible for you not recognising the fact that she never liked you 'in that way' to begin with. I realize it can be hard to tell sometimes, because women are tricky people to read at the best of times. She ovbiosly liked you as she wanted to be your firend, when a women says that it sinks any possible idea of a relationship.
Please, please don't take this the wrong way. But the last two posts (on wrong planet) I've read of yours make you seem a tad manipulative. The post about your PhD, the manipulation was more subtle until you snapped and threatened a professor. But in this last post you freely admit to trying to manipulate her emotionally.

I cannot stress how much this annoys people when they find out about it. I realize your Aspergers syndrom makes less aware of reading this fact and I am really not sure as to what you can do about it. Someone on wp can probably help with that.

 

[causalset]

Compare these two:

There are no rules, its not a board game. She will do whatever she wants besaed on how she feels.

And

She ovbiosly liked you as she wanted to be your firend, when a women says that it sinks any possible idea of a relationship.

If there were trully no rules, then being a friend would put groundwork for a relationship, not SINK its possibility. The reason the latter happens is that there are rules. A boyfriend is a hero of some sort. That "hero" was supposed to jump through the hoof in half a minute. But if you were a friend for a long time, that can hardly be construed as a jump of a superman, so this makes this man, while a good emotional supporter, totally disqualified from the "title" of a "boyfriend" (aka superman). So in my case, she apologised for having been shallow, so none of the things she originally held against me were an issue any more. But still, since I had been a "victim" of her misperceptions, and also since I was "too slow" and "didn't manage" to be with her faster, I was no longer a superman, hence no longer qualified.

Now, THAT is a rule. If a woman trully did what she wanted to, she would rather be with someone who can provide her with an emotional support and comfrot, not superman. You can go to circus to see supermen, but a partner is someone you should be able to share your life with, good and bad. How come it doesn't happen that way? Because woman does NOT do what she trully wants. Rather, she has to play by the rules, just like in a boardgame! Society has brainwashed her with some social expectations that she, as a woman, should follow, and she does. That is what I completely disagree wtih.

May I suggest that your asbergers is not responsible for 'turneing her off', but is probably responsible for you not recognising the fact that she never liked you 'in that way' to begin with.

You are correct that she stopped liking me at our first conversation. But that doesn't mean the first minute of first conversation. After all, she DID ask my horoscope sign, which was an hour into a first conversation. So yes she liked me first hour. She stopped liking me when I told her about my being desperate in a subsequent conversation after the horoscope sign. Now, if she stopped liking me because of X and Y, and later I refutted both X and Y, how come she still didn't like me? Because "the rules" told her that since I was put on a friends ladder I am to stay there.

So far you have uesd your aspergers as an excuse for:

Not following instructions.
Being racist. ('Get back to China')
Attempting to manipulate (you even used this word several times) her into: feelign sorry for you (which makes women sympahise, but does not attact them). Then trying to go out with you.
Turning women off. (From what your own post says, she was never really on to begin with)

You present it as if turning women off is a choice to do something wrong, just like other things you listed are choices. But it is not a choice. Its a skill. There is no man who would choose to turn someone off; and, on the other hand, lots of men turn women off and can't help it, even the ones who don't have Asperger.

Now, since its the skill, it makes perfect sense that Asperger is a reason I lack that skill since Asperger affects social skills. If there are men without Asperger who have problems finding women, it is only logical that Asperger would make it several times more likely.

You tried to manipulate her feelings to suit your needs. People are not stupid, they can tell when thye are being manupulated, and they don't like it.

In this case she would have been mad at me, and her emails would have been far shorter, if she were to respond at all. More importantly, if she was mad at me, she wouldn't want to be a friend either. So if she decided to be a friend but not a lover, it has to be some other reason.

Please, please don't take this the wrong way. But the last two posts (on wrong planet) I've read of yours make you seem a tad manipulative. The post about your PhD, the manipulation was more subtle until you snapped and threatened a professor.

I never threatened the professor. The ppl to whom I said racist remarks were students, probably freshman, and it happened at a computer room, NOT physics department. On the other hand, in case of a professor I never said anything mean. I simply kept asking him over and over to reconsider my case, and he was scared because he told me that he wants the discussion to stop and I didn't stop. He was white by the way, so that has nothing to do with the racist thing with students.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Look this thread was asking for peoples opinion.

I also didnt read the entire post on wp. I've just read the series of 4 emails you sent to her, basically attacking her.

You don't seem to grasp that even though she's on a dating site. She may not want to date you. You messed it up, i'll give a shot list of why so you know for next time.

If you want a lady to sleep with you (which I assume is the ultimate goal of any man, it is of course biologically driven).

A:Dont ever get her to try to feel sorry for you.
This is not an attarctive quality, it will illict the nurture 'tend and befriend' responce in women which will eliminate any romantic feelings.

B: Dont manipulate.
It annoys people.

C: Dont be needy right off the bat. ('I need someone to emotionally support me')
A woman does not want someone who will be a burden. The way you phrased this is (if it want already) killed the idea stone dead.
A better phrase to use would be 'someone to talk to'. Which basically means the same thing but sounds less needy.

D: Don't lie, be fully honest.
People appreciate honesty, and people hate lying even if it is the non devious 'white lie'. You tries to second guess what she wanted and gave her answers she wanted to hear as opposed to what you fully believe.

Never lie to a women unless the question is 'does my bum look big in this?'

E: Once the phrase 'let's be firends' is used, abandon any hope of a sexual relationship. It basically means she doesn't want one.

F: Whatever you do, DO NOT send the series of 4 emails you listed in your post. She seemed like a patient person. Someone who is less patient would just drop you like a hot brick (both from firends and relationisips). I'm very surprised she even responded, let alone apologised.+++

If there were trully no rules, then being a friend would put groundwork for a relationship, not SINK its possibility. The reason the latter happens is that there are rules.

The phrase 'let's be firends' is not a rule. Its code. It means she doesn't want to have a relationship with you. Now there would be less ambiguity if she just came out and said, I don't want to date you. But women try to speare peoples feelings and 'lets be firends' is one way of trying to reject you gently.EDIT: she wasnt shallow either. I have no idea why she agreed to that.

Because woman does NOT do what she trully wants.

Basically if she wants to have a relationship (sex) with you, she will make it BLATANTLY obvious (the sign may be subtle but they will be there). If she doesn't want to have a relationship (sex) with you, there is nothing you can ever possibly do that will change her mind.

Either way, if she's made her mind uop. She will do what she wants and not what you want. In this case she decided that she didnt want you and wanted to let you down gently. You attempted to change her mind with some pretty angry emails. The result was the same.

 

[causalset]

A:Dont ever get her to try to feel sorry for you.
This is not an attarctive quality, it will illict the nurture 'tend and befriend' responce in women which will eliminate any romantic feelings.

Why does "tend and befriend" eliminate romantic feelings? Shouldn't it help romantic feelings since both makes ppl feel closer? I suspect the answer is that it is the rules that don't allow the women to feel romantically for someone whom they don't regard as strong. So why do women have to play by the rules instead of by the sensitive feelings that they have?

E: Once the phrase 'let's be firends' is used, abandon any hope of a sexual relationship. It basically means she doesn't want one.

This brings two questions:

(i) How come friends is opposite to a relatioship? Both make ppl closer, it should be on the same side, not opposite

(ii) If a woman decided she doesn't like you, why is it written in stone? She is human, not a robot, humans can change their mind.

At the same time, I fully agree with the truthfulness of what you said, after all, as a physicist, I should trust the data, and the data tells me that is true. So the question is WHY is it true? The answer is that women are "forced" to obey the rules. The rules tells them that (despite their wishes) a boyfriend is a superman, not an emotional supporter. A superman is too macho to ever be a friend, and also he is macho enough to get his "boyfriend" title fast. That answers (i).

Also, a superman is to be tested. When you go to a gym, the equipment there is not human. So the rules by which superman is being tested are not human either. Hence, if he "strikes out" of a game he can't go back, just like you won't get back to sport event once you strike out. That answers part (ii).

But of course both bring up a question: why does women force themselves to follow their rules? Why not base the relationship on deep emotional connection, independent of any rules?

The phrase 'let's be firends' is not a rule. Its code. It means she doesn't want to have a relationship with you. Now there would be less ambiguity if she just came out and said, I don't want to date you. But women try to speare peoples feelings and 'lets be firends' is one way of trying to reject you gently.

If the code was completely random, it could have been "the sky is blue". So the bottom line is that its not random, and there is some truth in it, at least in some cases.

Basically if she wants to have a relationship (sex) with you ...

By the way I don't believe in sex before marriage for religious reasons. This brings another question. What is the difference between relatioship and close friendship anyway? The obvious answer is that title is what makes a difference, and title is a part of the game, which proves my point.

There was another girl, Anne who also rejected me (don't confuse her with the girl on this post, it is a completely different story, see here http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt5922.html ) and she rejected me because I am not confident. But she trully DID want to be my friend, she was cooking for me, we were studying every day together in the study room, the whole day, she invited me to watch a movie, etc. She said herself at some point "how would our relationship be any different if we were in a relatioship"? Well, I want to ask her the same exact question. If there is no difference, then what was the poitn of refusing to call it a relatioship? The poitn is not to give me a title. And that is pretty offensive.

May be THATS why women use shallow criteria to decide whom to date, because dating is about title and NOT emotional connection? I read online how women cry on a shoulder of nice guys and how if a woman calls you too often it is NOT a good sign. So this means that woman DOES after all want to spend time with FRIENDS just like I think she would, while boyfriend is someone she reserves to admire, to give title to?

 

[xxChrisxx]

She stopped liking me when I told her about my being desperate in a subsequent conversation after the horoscope sign. Now, if she stopped liking me because of X and Y, and later I refutted both X and Y, how come she still didn't like me?

i;ve put this in a new post so it is easier to read, I don't want you to miss it.This is your major problem, you consider the dating game ans women to have set 'laws' if you like in physics.

You are dealing with emotional beings here. There is simply no way to 'refute' feelings.

eg.

HER: 'I don't like you because you are angry and don't like yourself.'
YOU: 'But I've changed, I now like myself'
HER: 'I'm glad for you, but I still dotn find you attractive'

People can't change their feeligns that easilly. Just becuasethe circumstances have chagned, doesn't mean peoples feelings change also.

With love/relationships its like a 1 way door. Once you cross the line you can never go back.

You treat people like you would a matheatical equation, and people just don't work like that.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Why does "tend and befriend" eliminate romantic feelings? Shouldn't it help romantic feelings since both makes ppl feel closer? I suspect the answer is that it is the rules that don't allow the women to feel romantically for someone whom they don't regard as strong. So why do women have to play by the rules instead of by the sensitive feelings that they have?

Because it does, that's just how women work.

Women are not sexually attracted to needy men. They view them as a helpless child lost in the park, someone to pitied not pursued. Even if you then suddenly become a macho man, they will still always view you as the helpless child.

There is no way of making this clearer.

This brings two questions:

(i) How come friends is opposite to a relatioship? Both make ppl closer, it should be on the same side, not opposite

(ii) If a woman decided she doesn't like you, why is it written in stone? She is human, not a robot, humans can change their mind.

If people don't like you, they done like you. Again that's just how it works.

People can go from liking you to not liking you in a split second. It takes weeks/months/years to get them to truly like you again.

An analogy: Making people not like you, is like falling off a cliff. Easy. Fast.
Making people like you again is like climbing that cliff. Slow, diffiicult, hard work.

At the same time, I fully agree with the truthfulness of what you said, after all, as a physicist, I should trust the data, and the data tells me that is true. So the question is WHY is it true? The answer is that women are "forced" to obey the rules. The rules tells them that (despite their wishes) a boyfriend is a superman, not an emotional supporter. A superman is too macho to ever be a friend, and also he is macho enough to get his "boyfriend" title fast. That answers (i).

People are not equations or data. They don't always follow logic or reasoning. They follow emotion.

Also if you let women know you are treating them as equations or data, it puts them off as they see it as devaluing them and cold.

 

[Redbelly98]

This is a situation that happened back in 2005. I never talked to her ever since, nor am I in love with her. I am just mad at the principle that she felt a need to abide within a framework of a certain "game" and "rules". Here is the thread that describes the situation in more detail: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt9507.html

Well, you did say in your own emails that you wish you could take back things you had said earlier, or don't feel now what you had written before. So I think you're being harsh on her when you keep pointing out contradictions in what she said before vs. what she says now.

The bottom line here, I think, is that she does not feel a romantic attraction and was looking for a polite way to say it, even if that way wasn't entirely truthful. Ask yourself, do you really think pointing these contradictions out to her will get her to change her mind about her feelings? Best to move on at this point.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You know if you want to discuss the role of 'rules' in social interactions, even dating in particular, it could make for an interesting conversation. I do not think though that it is very appropriate to be using your private correspondence with this woman as talking points so I am not going to be reading them.


On the matter of the 'rules' I have to agree with Chris that your perception of them seems a bit to static. The 'rules' of social interactions tend to change and they have much more to do with the way a person feels than what comes out of their mouth (or is typed). People often do not say what they really mean (its in the rules you know) and quite often are not even sure what they mean or how they feel. And as already pointed out attempts at demonstrating logical inconsistencies in how people feel does not generally effect much change in their feelings.

 

[Monique]

It happened 4 years ago and you're still mad and obsessing over it?

 

[BobG]

i;ve put this in a new post so it is easier to read, I don't want you to miss it.


This is your major problem, you consider the dating game ans women to have set 'laws' if you like in physics.

You are dealing with emotional beings here. There is simply no way to 'refute' feelings.

eg.

HER: 'I don't like you because you are angry and don't like yourself.'
YOU: 'But I've changed, I now like myself'
HER: 'I'm glad for you, but I still dotn find you attractive'

People can't change their feeligns that easilly. Just becuasethe circumstances have chagned, doesn't mean peoples feelings change also.

With love/relationships its like a 1 way door. Once you cross the line you can never go back.

You treat people like you would a matheatical equation, and people just don't work like that.

I like this. You can't erase previous encounters and start over. Anything you do in a relationship is a moving average. What you've done in the past is there forever. It can be averaged in with other stuff and lose a lot of its significance, but it doesn't just disappear.

There's two facets to this 'game' anyway.

There's the substance of the game in which she decides whether she likes you or not.

There's the 'rules' that provide a method of communicating the results of your decisions about each other without doing something embarrassing to yourselves or others. When relationships are extremely shallow, such as they are when they haven't even really begun yet, you don't owe each other very insightful or detailed reasons as to why you'd rather not pursue a relationship with them.

She doesn't owe you anything more than 'yes, she's interested in a romantic relationship' or 'no, she's not interested in a romantic relationship'. Don't get into the whole privacy debate as in "Sure she has a right keep her reasons private, but a person that has nothing to hide doesn't need a right to privacy." Leave her alone. Privacy is a right whether she has something to hide or not.

Since you're meeting these people through an online dating site, you could probably find a book on internet dating etiquette. It's an environment quite a bit different than the high school dating scene many adults might be familiar with, so you can easily find a book that describes the etiquette. While there's some quirks due to the medium in which you're meeting people, it's still dating and a good book probably has a lot of common sense rules that apply to dating in general.

 

[DaveC426913]

:shrug:

A self-acknowleged Ashberger, complaining about someone elses rules? Sounds like what's good for the goose ain't so tolerable to the gander.

This thread seems like a giant pot of lookitme lookitme.

 

[BobG]

This thread seems like a giant pot of lookitme lookitme.

I think most responders (including me) started out with an assumption that causalset was a normal young adult lacking confidence and relationship skills.

Actually, there's enough red flags in the link causalset provided to suggest he needs professional therapy and the girls in question were lucky they were perceptive enough to see some reason, however undefined, not to get in a relationship with him.

His post way towards the end of the link, "Has anyone thought that the very expression "hit it off" implies that it isn't about love but about hitting?" is a really big red flag.

 

[humanino]

The most important rule about women

There are no rules, its not a board game. She will do whatever she wants besaed on how she feels.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think most responders (including me) started out with an assumption that causalset was a normal young adult lacking confidence and relationship skills.

Well, as soon as I saw his [strike]novella[/strike] post on the other forum, I was pretty sure he had communication/processing issues. It might be that I'm just off a similar long-running discussion with another PF member.

 

[Moonbear]

Haven't talked to her in 4 years...get over her and get over yourself! Egads! You've got some serious obsession going on, no wonder she ran for the hills! The only rule I think she followed was the one that says you don't date weird people you've only met online who seem obsessed with you.

 

[Huckleberry]

Women aren't a science project guided by some cosmic set of rules. You can't trap someone in logical fallicies and expect them to change the way they feel. Your e-mails are more of a battlefield attempt to gain ground than an earnest attempt at discovering new territory. Next time try to be less right. You may not get any further, but it will help you deal with rejection.

If there are any rules to attraction it is an evolutionary process, either social or biological or both. There may be similarities between individuals, but each individual is unique. If you care about someone then make the effort to understand that uniqueness. Don't impose rules and expect conformity where you have no authority.

 

[Monique]

You've got some serious obsession going on, no wonder she ran for the hills! The only rule I think she followed was the one that says you don't date weird people you've only met online who seem obsessed with you.

and

You can't trap someone in logical fallicies and expect them to change the way they feel. Your e-mails are more of a battlefield attempt to gain ground than an earnest attempt at discovering new territory. Next time try to be less right. You may not get any further, but it will help you deal with rejection.

Amen. And to add to that, online communication is very different from real-life communication. You shouldn't base your opinion of someone based solely on text-messages. And.. you can't force someone to feel a certain way, so don't try that. I hope you will be able to move on, try to evaluate where you are now and work from that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

His post way towards the end of the link, "Has anyone thought that the very expression "hit it off" implies that it isn't about love but about hitting?" is a really big red flag.

Seconded.

Haven't talked to her in 4 years...get over her and get over yourself! Egads! You've got some serious obsession going on, no wonder she ran for the hills!

And seconded.

Obsessing about something that happened four years ago doesn't seem terribly healthy in my mind. What good can come of this?

 

[Pyrrhus]

After reading that CasualSet thread about not wanting to shower... I think the problem with his love interest (Katie) could have been fixed if he had showered or not, because of all the other red flags.

I think he needs professional help as well.

 

[JasonRox]

It happened 4 years ago and you're still mad and obsessing over it?

He has Asperger Syndrom. What else do you expect?

 

[27Thousand]

People are not equations or data. They don't always follow logic or reasoning. They follow emotion.

Although social skills were violated in that email and of course she was uncomfortable, something interesting to maybe consider is that emotion follows rules also. Using lateral thinking here, when we look at the definition of logic, it's a form of that, even if it's in a different way. Just like Physics and Neurology follow some form or another of orderly rules, so would emotions if they're based on neurology, even if less predictable at this point in time. Remember how Einstein attacked Quantum Theory saying just because something seems random doesn't mean there's no underlying order which hasn't been revealed yet, why not the same for emotions? From an evolutionary perspective, they'd follow some type of logic that's rational from a survival point of view. Something to think about, why are there emotion studies, where they use scientific control and statistical values to evaluate the physical logical consequences, in scientific peer-review journals?

An example of one possibility I thought of relating to underlying order, if you ask someone to do something important for you and they refuse, it seems awkward. It could affect how your status is viewed by the rest of the group. So anyway I read that people often turn down requests that another really cares about by using indirect ways to make it more polite. If someone asks another to help them out, instead of saying "No" they'll say "I actually have to do this", even if that alternative activity doesn't really get in the way, but they have no problem saying a direct yes if they decide to actually help. The same when turning down food that someone put a lot of time and effort into, "I'm trying to cut down on calories". So I would think that principle I read may have possibly evolved as a way to stop confrontation with others when you have to turn down a request someone else thinks is important. I would think that's a type of logic. It could be a combination of "more successful neural pathways becoming stronger" evolution and biological evolution together. I'm not the best with social skills, but most others are.Related to our discussion of whether humans have underlying order with members of the opposite sex, I found interesting there are scientific peer-review journal studies on courtship non-verbal patterns https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=341745 and apparently there's a forum here on why math works in our reality https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=334421

 

[27Thousand]

The bottom line here, I think, is that she does not feel a romantic attraction and was looking for a polite way to say it, even if that way wasn't entirely truthful. Ask yourself, do you really think pointing these contradictions out to her will get her to change her mind about her feelings? Best to move on at this point.

I think that may relate to something I read about politeness found in the post above and second paragraph. It's like it follows a different type of logic, even if a very structured underlying order of politeness rules that I wonder if were possibly affected by evolution.

Too confusing for me, too many details to follow, and would take a lot of scientific peer-review journal reading to understand it all.

Just like you may pull apart legos to understand the rules that make up a system, it would be interesting to systemize it all like Isaac Newton did with Physics.

 

[27Thousand]

This is a situation that happened back in 2005. I never talked to her ever since, nor am I in love with her. I am just mad at the principle that she felt a need to abide within a framework of a certain "game" and "rules". Here is the thread that describes the situation in more detail: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt9507.html

Okay dude check this out, I'm thinking along these lines, in Algebra you learn how you have the Y & X axises, solve for Y, and predict Y from X. Well combining that with other principles, in mathematics/statistics they've created Linear Regression. Maybe if you have many X independent variables to look at you can increase the chances of figuring out the Y independent variable (whether she likes), or the concept of Multiple Regression. So first think

Then make it a multidimensional scatter plot, and when you have multiple X independent non-verbal behaviors and know the correlational coefficients for every single one, plus interaction effects (or interaction correlation coefficients), add it all up, predicting the Y dependent variable or the ability to read the woman may go up.

So what I want to do is email many of the authors of these peer-review journal articles begging them for their data sets. Then I could use statistical software to calculate an equation like:

y^ = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + ... bnxn
likelihood she likes guy ... (certain percent mathematical constant) times (non-verbal behavior yes or no) + (%)times(non-verbal behavior yes or no) + (%)times(two or possibly three happening at the same time) and so on with the equation. Then there could be an optimal cutoff threshold where after adding variables doesn't do much, but where excluding some may hinder predictability.

Then maybe something like Calculus could be added into take into account rate of change for the regression line which predicts. Then maybe other mathematical concepts could be added in.

 

[27Thousand]

After reading that CasualSet thread about not wanting to shower... I think the problem with his love interest (Katie) could have been fixed if he had showered or not, because of all the other red flags.

Oh yes, and I think showering may help too. Thinking of it logically, if you want them to look past appearance and at your personality, you don't want them to get stuck on appearance, or hygiene.

As far as logic goes, that's a strong inductive logic inference.

 

[Chronos]

Let her see your refrigerator and laundry room on the first date. She will know everything she needs to know about you after that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let her see your refrigerator and laundry room on the first date. She will know everything she needs to know about you after that.

:rofl:

 

[Chronos]

What's with the woman thing? They are warm and fun to shower with. Everyone has issues. I just let it go, grab a sponge and exfoliate. I avoid discussing showers with guys, most that seem interested appear to have gay tendencies.