Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 "Nice guys" need to toughen up, or atleast start saving money, if they desire eventual dating success with heterosexual females.
Sisyphus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I'm going to be honest, here. I only read a couple of paragraphs into your post. It's very long. Are you claiming anything different than in your last topic? If not, I'll just merge them. Anyway, it seems to me that the basis of your argument is a false dichotomy between masculinity and "niceness." That's not the only flaw in it (vast overgeneralization and an apparent reliance on fringe psychology are others), but it's a good place to start. Being masculine does not necessitate being a "jerk." To the contrary - some of the most traditionally masculine qualities, like protectiveness, "honor," etc., are "nice" attributes as well. And in my experience "jerkiness" is usually compensation for the insecure) Similarly, being emotionally needy and insecure is hardly the same thing as being "nice."
Pete Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) Frankly I dismiss anyone who claims to understand women or know what they want. That said, I'll state my naive impressions: Woman are first attracted by physical appearance and only then to personality. Thus if a woman starts dating a man she is physically attracted to and the man turns out to be a jerk then they'll think Gee. I wish I was dating a nice guy. What they're really mean is that I wish I was dating an attractive man who is also a nice guy. As a general rule woman don't want whimpy/geeky men. Whimpy/geeky and nice are not the same thing. A similar thing holds for us men of course. We are first attrracted by physical appearences too and then to personality. Thus if we start dating a hot babe who turns out to be a be b*tch*s then we'll think Gee. I wish I was dating nice girl. What we are really thinking is I wish I was dating a hot babe who is also a nice girl. We too aren't all that interested in geeky women. There are exceptions to every rule of course and I know of examples from my own life. Any generality has many exceptions. E.g. women claim to want to date intelligent men. But many women can't deal with intelligent men because they will in turn feel stupid being around them. Edited January 20, 2009 by Pmb
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 I'm going to be honest, here. I only read a couple of paragraphs into your post. It's very long. Are you claiming anything different than in your last topic? If not, I'll just merge them. No, the subject under consideration here is that women find the "nice guy" construct to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable. Anyway, it seems to me that the basis of your argument is a false dichotomy between masculinity and "niceness." That's not the only flaw in it (vast overgeneralization and an apparent reliance on fringe psychology are others), but it's a good place to start. Being masculine does not necessitate being a "jerk." To the contrary - some of the most traditionally masculine qualities, like protectiveness, "honor," etc., are "nice" attributes as well. And in my experience "jerkiness" is usually compensation for the insecure) Similarly, being emotionally needy and insecure is hardly the same thing as being "nice." You need to sit down and read the actual research, instead of quickly jumping to random conclusions. Nowhere within the essay is a false dichotomy established between masculinity and "niceness", however, according to the 1995 research of Bogaert and Fisher, the trait of hypermasculinity is strongly associated with individual-level male psychopathology. The actual point of the essay was that when both "nice guy" and "bad boy" stereotypes were operationalized as empirical, definitely quantifiable constructs, actual observation of female socio-sexual behaviour revealed a preference for males low in measures of niceness/agreeableness, and high in measures of extraversion, psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Women had very little or no interest in such personality traits as being kind or friendly, and desired men who were extraverted, hypermasculine, even psychopathic in behaviour. Moreover, I find your accusations of "overgeneralization" and "fringe psychology" to be bizarre. First, there is no logical objection to the construction of a statistical generalization based on the relative probability of trait possession within a given population demographic, provided the calculation of such is based on legitimate empirical research and mathematical techniques like Bayesian statistical formulae, multiple regression analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA (covariation research) etc. In fact, the chief function of experimental social scientific work is the systematic determination of how falsifiable or empirically well-founded a statistical generalization extracted from the available data really is. Second, you are obviously not a student of psychology or any other behavioural science for that matter, because you would know that all of the research cited is university/government funded, produced by well-known social scientists, and published in prestigious academic journals, such as The Journal of Sex Research.
iNow Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 You need to sit down and read the actual research, instead of quickly jumping to random conclusions. Good stuff. Your interpretations are so skewed and absolutist, they're laughable. Yet, you tell OTHERS to sit down and read the actual research? Nice. You're worthy of some style points on that one.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 Good stuff. Your interpretations are so skewed and absolutist, they're laughable. Yet, you tell OTHERS to sit down and read the actual research? Nice. You're worthy of some style points on that one. Not true. If you read the actual report itself, you will find that my conclusions are relative and based exclusively on the available evidence at hand. I have said nothing about female mate preference that was not solidly grounded in the empirical research of established, peer-reviewed literature produced by well-known psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and sociological researchers.
Pete Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 You need to sit down and read the actual research, instead of quickly jumping to random conclusions. That is an enormous amount of work. Not only does one have to read the particular references you posted but also search out and read arguements from the opposition, i.e. those who argue against his conclusions. Did you do this?
bob000555 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) True Abdual-Aziz tends to make absolutists statements and oversimplify the complex concept of attraction, and I don’t agree that all women think alike nor that aggression is the singular most important factor effecting attraction(at least in most women, though a Abdul pointed out there are women who seem to have a masochistic tendencies to date abusive men). But I feel all of us can agree that aggression, assertiveness and hypermasculinity TEND to be seen as positive traits in men by SOME women, I further believe we can all agree that this is an evolutionary holdover from a time long ago when the most important thing for the women was to have a male who could defend her a find food etc. I also believe it is true that in SOME women these traits CAN be seen as more important than things like intelligence that are more relevant in the modern world. I submit as evidence the population of Staten Island; pictured herein is a representative sample of the reprodutive straegies thereunto associated : Edited January 20, 2009 by bob000555
Sisyphus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I further believe we can all agree that this is an evolutionary holdover from a time long ago when the most important thing for the women was to have a male who could defend her a find food etc. Exactly! Seeming capable of protecting and caring for your mate is a masculine characteristic, but having the actual propensity to do so is a "nice guy" characteristic. What advantage would there be in shunning either trait?
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 Actually, male socio-economic status is the dominant female sexual preference, as unearthed by such recent scientific investigators as D.M. Buss (1990), and hypothesized by such evolutionary biologists as R. Trivers (1972). However, on the basis of modern empirical research, it is likely that a SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of women are physically attracted to men who display such character traits as low niceness/agreeableness, extraversion, sensation-seeking, hypermasculinity, low empathy, aggressiveness etc.
SH3RL0CK Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 So... I am unclear on your points Abdul-Aziz. Please tell me what you think is wrong with this modern research?
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 So... I am unclear on your points Abdul-Aziz. Please tell me what you think is wrong with this modern research? Who said anything was wrong with the empirical sociological/psychological research on female mate preference? Certainly, not I. The recent findings suggest that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to violent, aggressive, and even dangerous men. However, the MAJORITY of women would be largely attracted to male socio-economic status and earning capacity.
iNow Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I'm going to be honest, here. I only read a couple of paragraphs into your post. It's very long. Are you claiming anything different than in your last topic? If not, I'll just merge them. This seems to be a pretty clear response to your question: The recent findings suggest that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to violent, aggressive, and even dangerous men. Oddly, the thread title says something completely different. Saying women are sexually attreacted to violent men is not the same as saying women hate nice guys. Either way, this content is the same as that other thread.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 Oddly, the thread title says something completely different. Saying women are sexually attreacted to violent men is not the same as saying women hate nice guys. Either way, this content is the same as that other thread. I disagree. Most of the available evidence suggests that women (as a general tendency of course) are not attracted to men who are sweet, nice, sensitive, kind, or compassionate (or even too intelligent for that matter); it is this thesis which serves as the current thread topic. That women are attracted to violent, aggressive males or "bad boys" is a tangential, yet interrelated subject. 1
mooeypoo Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Abdul-Aziz, you have another thread - on the exact same topic, only phrased differently. If your intention is to open a new thread and rephrase it every time you encounter "tough" opposition or hard questions, I recommend you revisit our forum rules. You are, again, phrasing your thread in a generalized manner, one that I - as a woman who does not follow your theory - completely evaporate by merely existing. If your point is that "many women" find such men repulsive, phrase it properly, so our analysis can concentrate on how such thing can be tested and proven, rather than going in circles - yet AGAIN - with your change of phrasing. We've been over this.
Bettina Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I disagree. Most of the available evidence suggests that women (as a general tendency of course) are not attracted to men who are sweet, nice, sensitive, kind, or compassionate (or even too intelligent for that matter); it is this thesis which serves as the current thread topic. That women are attracted to violent, aggressive males or "bad boys" is a tangential, yet interrelated subject. I'm a nice girl who likes nice guys and I never hang out with crude, insensitive low-lifes. Maybe you should do some research outside the bar room you're getting this "evidence" from. Bee 1
devrimci_kürt Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 shoot! I am a nice guy That is the way it was fated to be:embarass:
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Threads merged due to similarity of content. Abdul-Aziz, it is insufficient to only cite the surname of a paper's author along with the year of publication. You should also include (usually at the end of the text) the title of the paper, the name of the publication in which it appeared, and the other pertinent details. There is a good guide to Harvard-style referencing here: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm
Pete Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I just realized a major flaw in the opening post. There is a huge difference between bad boy and asshole. I had a friend who as a bad boy but who was a very nice guy. A friend of mine dated him. Years later she was telling me about her regrets about that. At that time the "bad boy" thing was exciting to her. All that changed when she grew up and she was embarassed that she went out with him. I hear that a lot.
iNow Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Which raises another intersting point... Not only does the interpretation being presented by Abdul ignore individual differences, it also ignores age related differences. Srike twelve...
SH3RL0CK Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Who said anything was wrong with the empirical sociological/psychological research on female mate preference? Certainly, not I. The recent findings suggest that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to violent, aggressive, and even dangerous men. However, the MAJORITY of women would be largely attracted to male socio-economic status and earning capacity. Wasn't the title of the thread (before the merger) something along the lines of "Why does this research indicate something totally preposterous?" I can not imagine why these so called "researchers" can come to such easily disproved conclusions. I thought from your title that you maybe had a idea as to what they were doing wrong? I guess I misunderstood your point for this thread, because the only useful thing to do with such obviously flawed studies is to try to determine what went wrong with the researcher,publishers, etc. That, or make fun of them.
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 Wasn't the title of the thread (before the merger) something along the lines of "Why does this research indicate something totally preposterous?" I can not imagine why these so called "researchers" can come to such easily disproved conclusions. I thought from your title that you maybe had a idea as to what they were doing wrong? I guess I misunderstood your point for this thread, because the only useful thing to do with such obviously flawed studies is to try to determine what went wrong with the researcher,publishers, etc. That, or make fun of them. Well, you can either accept the findings of modern scientific investigation or you can reject it. After all, wasn't Galileo viciously mocked by his contemporaries for debunking the concept of a geocentric universe? The fact of the matter is that all current empirical research suggests that (1.) the MAJORITY of women find altruistic (i.e. sweet, kind) men to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable, that (2.) violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths establish short-term/long-term committed relationships and attract large numbers of female sex partners at a rate that is significantly higher than men who are less pathological (according to the standard diagnostic tool by which psychopathy is measured, the PCL-R, sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with numerous heterosexual females is a core feature of the psychopathic personality), and that (3.) a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE of women, for both purely psychological and evolutionary biological reasons, find men who possess such traits as aggression, low niceness/agreeableness, hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, low empathy, narcissistic etc, to be very sexually attractive. These are the most recent findings of modern empirical research on the matter and, unless we can provide contradictory evidence, we must eventually learn to accept and come to grips with it.
SH3RL0CK Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Well, you can either accept the findings of modern scientific investigation or you can reject it. And when findings conflict? Then you reject what is most unlikely, which is the claims of your sources. Seriously, one night at almost any bar will provide ample evidence to the contrary. After all, wasn't Galileo viciously mocked by his contemporaries for debunking the concept of a geocentric universe? I don't understand this comment? All I am saying is that this "research" is clearly wrong.The fact of the matter is that all current empirical research suggests that (1.) the MAJORITY of women find altruistic (i.e. sweet, kind) men to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable, I strongly disagree with your statement of "all". My time at the local pubs produces very different findings. I find the studies you referenced disasterously flawed, and I could easily get better scientific studies, with different conclusions. Except I don't beleive you are serious. If you were serious you would have found these other studies yourself. that (2.) violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths establish short-term/long-term committed relationships and attract large numbers of female sex partners at a rate that is significantly higher than men who are less pathological (according to the standard diagnostic tool by which psychopathy is measured, the PCL-R, sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with numerous heterosexual females is a core feature of the psychopathic personality), and these people are also far less selective in their search (i.e. any female will work) and cast a far wider net. For example, I would never hire a prostitute (a short term relationship) but a convicted felon might do so quite frequently. The implication is of course that promiscuity is a measure of sucess. Why do you blindly accept the notion that the number of partners is any measure of "sucess"? that (3.) a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE of women, for both purely psychological and evolutionary biological reasons, find men who possess such traits as aggression, low niceness/agreeableness, hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, low empathy, narcissistic etc, to be very sexually attractive. I have a problem with your inconsistent definintions here. What is "hyper masculinity"? How do you measure it? What is "substantial" percentage? Is it 99% or 1%? A substantial number of women prefer other women over any men (i.e. are lesbians) for that matter. Even if a woman finds someone sexual attractive, this does not mean they will immediately jump into bed with that man. Nor does it mean the man will immediately jump into bed with the woman either. Seriously, this statement is useless without defining the terms. These are the most recent findings of modern empirical research on the matter and, unless we can provide contradictory evidence, Then please do yourself a favor and go get some contradictory evidence. we must eventually learn to accept and come to grips with it. Really? Not if this is untrue. And even if, (even if! Ha!) there was any truth at all to this, we could chose instead to change society. For example, by providing better role-models (father figures) to young girls, among thousands of ways peoples beliefs and attitudes are shaped (its not all genetics and biology). I really believe you are just trolling here (I certainly hope you don't actually believe these rediculous things, or I would pity you). But since I am finding this stupid arguement funny, and have a little bit of time, I am willing to play along today. Of course, when I get busy, I won't waste my time to reply to this thread. Edited January 21, 2009 by SH3RL0CK correcting typos
Recommended Posts