As someone with problems in the dating market, I really don't need to lower my standards any further.
Sometimes I am sad because I feel like I don't find enough good articles for Hubski. This one, in my opinion, is pure fucking gold.
This just in, you're more likely to have a long lasting relationship when it's based on compatible personality and caring about one another, more news at 11. Damn, I sure hope so. Hey, this is something I can agree with. You're not "lowering your standards", usually, you're just accepting the qualities another person has, and the fact that you can't morph them into the bubbles that you want them to be in.it starts with trying to ignore the superficial indices of value — attractiveness, wealth — in favor of hidden attributes with a stronger correlation to long-term relationship success.
And is it possible to make thoughtful, strategic choices when it comes to relationships?
one that is not so much about lowering standards as giving yourself better ones.
We're saying the same exact thing, you're just being pessimistic and cynical about it. Accepting other qualities is only "fake-speak" if you find that recognizing that nobody is going to be the perfect person you want them to be is a bad thing. Which, if it is...good luck being in a solid, fruitful relationship, I guess?
Hey guys, I'm going to start dating people with a lower socioeconomic value, but I'm totally not lowering my standards! nope, I'm simply "accepting other qualities", like the wart on their left ass cheek, and that birth mark plastered across their face. but they give great head, I bet that hot chick totally doesn't give good head.
Your zingers need a little work. Also defining human worth in a socioeconomic sense is pretty vile and I hope you don't gauge all your relationships on that basis.
It's almost as if society's standards as a whole are rooted in historically flawed metrics. Who would have thought!
You believe (incorrectly) someone compliments you, and you're a dick anyway? This will be our last interaction.
The way you've phrased it is kinda funny, like when someone marries up, the other person isn't marrying down. But I know what you mean, and I'll even link to a writeup for you.and yet, it's well known that most people have a tendency to marry either up or across in socio-economic terms, rarely down.
In socio-economic terms, a good looking woman is more highly sought after than an ugly woman. When you look strictly at the economic portion of that equation, the value a partner brings to the table starts to look weird. The term 'boy toy' and 'trophy wife' didn't come about by accident.
I genuinely wonder what your problem is. Truly. Besides the fact that you're being incredibly sexist, you're delivering a weak version of my argument. Surprisingly enough, sometimes people don't care about warts and birth marks, or even monetary value. Sometimes they care about the fact that the person they're in love with has the same hobbies as them, or is willing to listen and solve problems with a level head. Jesus...I don't even know what else to say to you, it seems like you're beyond salvation. Refer to what I just said. In case you missed it, here it is again:good luck being in a solid, fruitful relationship, I guess?
So correct me if I'm wrong here, you're saying people care about birthmarks and warts and monetary value more than emotional compatibility. In general. As a whole. And I said "sometimes" in a sarcastic manner, in order to emphasize that what you're saying is...well...stupid. And here's a winky-face since apparently that's what we're doing. ;)
I wonder if the average person would agree that if something is used as an example, then there are no other concrete things outside of those specific examples. I wonder if it's possible that the set of things a person will refuse to couple with someone over is much larger than birthmarks and warts. weird. I also wonder why only the rich guys seem to date the women 30-40 years their junior. Emotional compatibility I'm guessing... There's your version of reality, and then there's society. Lets just say your version of reality isn't the reason your parents fucked and had you.So correct me if I'm wrong here, you're saying people care about birthmarks and warts and monetary value more than emotional compatibility.
Assuming my parents are American and lived in an American society with American values. The ones that you seem to think are the reason why they decided to have me. Assuming you know my parents. Assuming you know anything about me, which is a problem that you seem to have. Hey buddy, don't drop a weak counterargument and then get mad when I address that weak counterargument. mreiland, you poor, sweet, sexist summer child. I have nothing more to say to you, but I can only feel sorry for the people who have to know you in the physical world. May your future complaints about Hubski on Hubski be long, annoying, and unfruitful.I wonder if it's possible that the set of things a person will refuse to couple with someone over is much larger than birthmarks and warts.
Are you saying non-american countries don't have a society? That seems a bit egotistical and biased, don't you think? I mean, I'm all for national pride, but the idea that speaking about society implies the US, or even just the America's seems pretty outlandish to me. ok, lets use another example then. How many women do you think are going to date an impotent man who's income is below the poverty line? Weird how suddenly their emotional compatibility doesn't seem to be much of a factor. Crazy how I could go for that one as an example too. Must be my weak-assed counter-arguments.Hey buddy, don't drop a weak counterargument and then get mad when I address that weak counterargument.
I suppose the tl,dr of this article is "People have flaws/aren't perfect, pick the qualities that last," yes. So in that way it's perhaps going back to basic intelligence. What I liked - and what blew my mind a little bit - were the statistics presented about how many people out of 100 would fulfill "standard" or, better word, "typical" requirements people may desire in a match.
You have a homework assignment. Half of this book is about dating. Seriously. It's about the errors in the approaches we make in online dating and the unexpected adaptations we make in the real world. I expect a book report within the next three weeks.
I'm just about to finish reading this. I'm glad you shared it, the ideas and results in chapters 6,8, and 10 were at times surprising and made me reflect on my thoughts on adaptation and online dating. Really good and interesting read. Achieved my goal of finishing two books this week, which is nice. On to trying to learn WebDev things again.
A lot of people just assume that guys are only into hot women. In fact, I kind of don't want an attractive mate to be honest. What do I want? I want someone who doesn't blab my entire life history on Facebook 10 seconds after I tell her something personal. I want someone who is comfortable with their own life and doesn't need my approval or her friends' approval just to speak her mind. I want someone who isn't a moron financially and makes reasonable decisions in general. The other problem is, I generally get blinders on when I am actively looking for someone. There have been many times where 3 months after having last spoken to a person I wonder why in the world I was ever interested in them in the first place. So will I find a mate? Probably not. Do I care? No. I'm sick of society pushing on people that you absolutely must have a mate, must be social, and must conform to existing societies' standards. If you don't, society views you as either a potential mass murderer, a rapist, or a pedophile. I have been accused of every single one of those just about 200+ times in my life, and I can confirm I am none of those. I guess I can't confirm it, you'll just think I'm those things anyway. Anyone who even has to deny they are a pedophile or a serial killer really is one of those things, right? Bottom line is, just be comfortable being alone. It's great when you think about it! Uhhhh... $87k/year is an actual cutoff for some people? Seriously?If she would like him to be fairly attractive and earn a comfortable income (over $87,000 annually), then she’s down to a single prospect out of 100.
We have the data, and we're going to start using it!? I'm glad that's becoming the case in a lot of different areas as of late (based on this article and everything Nate Silver touches ever). Seems like all they're saying is to look for the less superficial qualities that a person has and to try and date somebody you genuinely like being around....putting some cold figures to the mating game, employing an approach similar to the one used by scientists who calculate the chances of life on other planets.