-
Chiyuri wrote on 2014-08-06 01:44
What happened to Personality?
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-08-06 01:52
Quote from Chiyuri;1237582:
What happened to Personality?
Personality can't buy you a Mercedes. Is that what rich people drive now? Mercedes?
-
Kyishi wrote on 2014-08-06 02:23
Quote from Hanna;1237548:
I've known a few gold diggers but they're a minority
Most girls I know don't want a broke loser whose going no where in life and can't hang onto a dollar they just want a guy with some stability. That doesn't mean he has to be wealthy, they want a man with a 9 to 5 job with a decent income. They're not looking for a one-night stand they're looking for someone to start a family and make a life with. You can't do that whole counting change for a loaf of bread. If you've never held a job or are content with working at mcdonalds forever no one will find you attractive. That's not gold digging that's having reasonable standards.
i was going to write this post but you beat me to it
-
Yoorah wrote on 2014-08-06 04:12
o plz
You're a famous gold digger. :|
-
Iljimae wrote on 2014-08-06 05:44
Simplifying things down to generalizations such as wealth, or valuing good looks over personality, undermines the complexities woven within choosing a partner and the motivations of people.
Everyone I've chosen to date, even casually, has had a personality/qualities I enjoyed to some extent and I held some degree of attraction towards them at some point.
However, since I am no longer dating them that means that a simplified quality like "intelligence" was not a determining factor, but rather the intricacies of our relationship, functioning as a unit, and ourselves. After all, what is intelligence when simplified? People excel in different areas, and when seeking a quality such as intelligence for a relationship, it is a subjectively measured aspect, usually with some correspondence to being able to understand each others opinions. Someone could be musically intelligent, yet struggle with something such as philosophy. Someone could also lack IQ, yet be a hard worker.
Not too long ago I went on a date with a self-made millionaire in the app business, yet now I'm in a relationship with a teacher, who is also successful, but in a different form. While success was attractive, it was not the defining factor in determining if they were someone I wanted to date long term or not. Financial prowess, in my case, is important, but wealth is not a necessity. Physical attractiveness also has the possibility to develop after mental attraction and for some is not even a considered factor, however, I feel it is shallow to shame others for valuing being physically attracted to their partner as well.
Truth is, there is no defining factor or quality at least not a simplified one. There may be an initial reason, but long term relationships, even relationships with a foundation of marrying for money, are built on much more than what any of us are able to judge. Personality should not be simplified into good or not, as there are probably qualities in your partner that you favor and those that you do not.
I feel while outside perspectives are healthy for a relationship to a degree, it's also important to remember that there are things about others relationships that we do not understand. We are not there for every moment, and we were not there for all of their life and their experiences. We do not fully understand their needs. Thus, generalizations, such as viewing someone as a "gold digger", skew perspectives, especially without taking into account varying cultures and what quality each culture ranks higher in their hierarchy when deciding life partners.
-
Username wrote on 2014-08-06 05:49
Women are evil disgusting creatures.
I've seen women choose worse people over the good ones for stupid reasons.
Im just cold and bitter old username.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2014-08-06 06:06
Someone is trying to derail the dumb discussion I created in this thread. :0
Can't even troll in peace, geez.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-08-06 07:08
Quote from Iljimae;1237622:
Simplifying things down to generalizations such as wealth, or valuing good looks over personality, undermines the complexities woven within choosing a partner and the motivations of people.
Everyone I've chosen to date, even casually, has had a personality/qualities I enjoyed to some extent and I held some degree of attraction towards them at some point.
However, since I am no longer dating them that means that a simplified quality like "intelligence" was not a determining factor, but rather the intricacies of our relationship, functioning as a unit, and ourselves. After all, what is intelligence when simplified? People excel in different areas, and when seeking a quality such as intelligence for a relationship, it is a subjectively measured aspect, usually with some correspondence to being able to understand each others opinions. Someone could be musically intelligent, yet struggle with something such as philosophy. Someone could also lack IQ, yet be a hard worker.
Not too long ago I went on a date with a self-made millionaire in the app business, yet now I'm in a relationship with a teacher, who is also successful, but in a different form. While success was attractive, it was not the defining factor in determining if they were someone I wanted to date long term or not. Financial prowess, in my case, is important, but wealth is not a necessity. Physical attractiveness also has the possibility to develop after mental attraction and for some is not even a considered factor, however, I feel it is shallow to shame others for valuing being physically attracted to their partner as well.
Truth is, there is no defining factor or quality at least not a simplified one. There may be an initial reason, but long term relationships, even relationships with a foundation of marrying for money, are built on much more than what any of us are able to judge. Personality should not be simplified into good or not, as there are probably qualities in your partner that you favor and those that you do not.
I feel while outside perspectives are healthy for a relationship to a degree, it's also important to remember that there are things about others relationships that we do not understand. We are not there for every moment, and we were not there for all of their life and their experiences. We do not fully understand their needs. Thus, generalizations, such as viewing someone as a "gold digger", skew perspectives, especially without taking into account varying cultures and what quality each culture ranks higher in their hierarchy when deciding life partners.
TLDR: THE MATRIX IS CRAP, WE NEED A MORE COMPLEX MODEL.
-
Rukuna wrote on 2014-08-06 07:28
Of the girls I've dated all of them bar one was in the
[Image: http://www.novablack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bAs2ifQ.png]
The other was like 15/10 crazy
I know a girl in the date zone, shame she turned me down. :cry:
-
Izaya wrote on 2014-08-06 07:47
Quote from Iljimae;1237622:
Simplifying things down to generalizations such as wealth, or valuing good looks over personality, undermines the complexities woven within choosing a partner and the motivations of people.
Everyone I've chosen to date, even casually, has had a personality/qualities I enjoyed to some extent and I held some degree of attraction towards them at some point.
However, since I am no longer dating them that means that a simplified quality like "intelligence" was not a determining factor, but rather the intricacies of our relationship, functioning as a unit, and ourselves. After all, what is intelligence when simplified? People excel in different areas, and when seeking a quality such as intelligence for a relationship, it is a subjectively measured aspect, usually with some correspondence to being able to understand each others opinions. Someone could be musically intelligent, yet struggle with something such as philosophy. Someone could also lack IQ, yet be a hard worker.
Not too long ago I went on a date with a self-made millionaire in the app business, yet now I'm in a relationship with a teacher, who is also successful, but in a different form. While success was attractive, it was not the defining factor in determining if they were someone I wanted to date long term or not. Financial prowess, in my case, is important, but wealth is not a necessity. Physical attractiveness also has the possibility to develop after mental attraction and for some is not even a considered factor, however, I feel it is shallow to shame others for valuing being physically attracted to their partner as well.
Truth is, there is no defining factor or quality at least not a simplified one. There may be an initial reason, but long term relationships, even relationships with a foundation of marrying for money, are built on much more than what any of us are able to judge. Personality should not be simplified into good or not, as there are probably qualities in your partner that you favor and those that you do not.
I feel while outside perspectives are healthy for a relationship to a degree, it's also important to remember that there are things about others relationships that we do not understand. We are not there for every moment, and we were not there for all of their life and their experiences. We do not fully understand their needs. Thus, generalizations, such as viewing someone as a "gold digger", skew perspectives, especially without taking into account varying cultures and what quality each culture ranks higher in their hierarchy when deciding life partners.
I...want to argue this...but...yknow what? You're right.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-08-06 10:20
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Iljimae again.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2014-08-06 13:37
Quote from TLCBonaparte;1237638:
TLDR: THE MATRIX IS CRAP, WE NEED A MORE COMPLEX MODEL.
Actually, we don't! She simply offered her view which is that how one defines the 0-10 Hot axis values may differ from person to person. The dude even says that you need to collect data to figure out these value ranges for yourself. Trust the matrix, yo.
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-08-06 16:00
No! She is saying intelligence is not a sufficient parameter, we need to categorize it and replace it with more variables, and she is saying that unobserved error term (people's individual experience) is too large right now, we need to find a way to get around that to make more accurate estimation.
-
Iljimae wrote on 2014-08-06 16:02
:llama_scared:
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2014-08-06 16:32
Quote from Iljimae;1237622:
[SPOILER=" "]Simplifying things down to generalizations such as wealth, or valuing good looks over personality, undermines the complexities woven within choosing a partner and the motivations of people.
Everyone I've chosen to date, even casually, has had a personality/qualities I enjoyed to some extent and I held some degree of attraction towards them at some point.
However, since I am no longer dating them that means that a simplified quality like "intelligence" was not a determining factor, but rather the intricacies of our relationship, functioning as a unit, and ourselves. After all, what is intelligence when simplified? People excel in different areas, and when seeking a quality such as intelligence for a relationship, it is a subjectively measured aspect, usually with some correspondence to being able to understand each others opinions. Someone could be musically intelligent, yet struggle with something such as philosophy. Someone could also lack IQ, yet be a hard worker.
Not too long ago I went on a date with a self-made millionaire in the app business, yet now I'm in a relationship with a teacher, who is also successful, but in a different form. While success was attractive, it was not the defining factor in determining if they were someone I wanted to date long term or not. Financial prowess, in my case, is important, but wealth is not a necessity. Physical attractiveness also has the possibility to develop after mental attraction and for some is not even a considered factor, however, I feel it is shallow to shame others for valuing being physically attracted to their partner as well.
Truth is, there is no defining factor or quality at least not a simplified one. There may be an initial reason, but long term relationships, even relationships with a foundation of marrying for money, are built on much more than what any of us are able to judge. Personality should not be simplified into good or not, as there are probably qualities in your partner that you favor and those that you do not.
I feel while outside perspectives are healthy for a relationship to a degree, it's also important to remember that there are things about others relationships that we do not understand. We are not there for every moment, and we were not there for all of their life and their experiences. We do not fully understand their needs. Thus, generalizations, such as viewing someone as a "gold digger", skew perspectives, especially without taking into account varying cultures and what quality each culture ranks higher in their hierarchy when deciding life partners.[/SPOILER]
The problem with this ideologically is that men traditionally have no fucking clue about what's going on.
I understand that relationships are an involved subject. The associated complications of inter-personal relations would be ideally broken down and categorized in order to clarify and improve ones understanding of the operating environment. Women, in contrast to men, tend to be less transparent. I can only explain this difference by relating it to a math problem of sort where an expectant professor stares at you bleakly while you attempt to solve an equation written in several difference fonts, font sizes, and colors. These traits distract us from our original intentions and cause us to re-analyze known formulas, all the while desperately wishing that the numbers weren't written in Comic Sans.
I've also never been in a relationship of any kind; this is merely my perception of the state of affairs. I've never even held someone's hand. I don't think I would be comfortable with that. The psychological implications of that statement are certainly interesting.