The social ramifications of rampant obesity

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Tue May 17, 2011 11:10 am

Koumei wrote:
Kaelik wrote:I consider only Frank and K to even have an argument for intellectual superiority over me here in TGD, with some other people having strong arguments for equality.
What's the name of that cognitive bias where people who think they're awesome at something are actually crap at vice versa?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue May 17, 2011 2:19 pm

Koumei wrote:What's the name of that cognitive bias where people who think they're awesome at something are actually crap at vice versa?

Just saying you may wish to consider that before making such statements. I'm not saying I should be placed up there in intellectual power, and okay, thanks to the 4rry invasions it probably isn't hard to be in the top 20% or whatever, but still, saying "I AM ONE OF THE SMARTEST" kind of gives people the impression of the reverse.

Alternatively, people who are actually one of the smartest are in fact one of the smartest, and there is a huge difference between being in the top 5% of something, vs being in the top 50% of something (which is what Orion thought I meant when I said smart).

I don't usually go around saying that I am one of the smartest, because I consider it self evident, but the degree to which I am the smartest is important to this conversation.

Additionally, Dunning Krueger has no meaning in this situation unless you actually want to assert that I am really dumb. Dunning Krueger is where people who know almost nothing think they know a lot. So if I were to say "I write RPG rules better than everyone on this forum (except Frank Trollman)." That would only be Dunning Krueger if I actually write really shitty rules.

If I write rules that are good but not that good, then it's not Dunning Krueger to think I am better than I am, it's just arrogance. Which you'll note, is one of my self described characteristics.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Tue May 17, 2011 5:21 pm

Kaelik wrote: there is a huge difference between being in the top 5% of something, vs being in the top 50% of something (which is what Orion thought I meant when I said smart).

I didn't misunderstand you, I just disagree with you. You do not really have to be that smart to be smart enough to attract someone by your wit, knowledge, or achievement. For one thing, there are a lot of fields. More than five percent of the men in my dorm are the best man in the dorm within their discipline, because there are a lot of disciplines. And being the smartest economist or psychologist or bible scholar or continental philosopher is still attractive even if the dorm physicist or doctor or linguist or Sanskrit translator is in fact smarter than you.

Sort of by definition, if you're in the top 50% of your social group, people in that group will think of you as "smart." Turning that smarts into attraction has more to do with shared interests, timing, and personality than which quartile you fall in.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue May 17, 2011 5:52 pm

but Kaelik is teh awsum! He's so much more uber than everyone around him that women flock to him.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed May 18, 2011 12:48 am

Orion wrote:I didn't misunderstand you, I just disagree with you. You do not really have to be that smart to be smart enough to attract someone by your wit, knowledge, or achievement.

Orion wrote:But you appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be agreeing with K that college women waste their time chasing after the 5% hottest guys. But is smarts and charm are just as good, how can that be? I'm guessing that, charming though you may be, you do not have a monopoly on attractive personality at your school. I know that at my school, way more than 5% of the men are smart and funny. Probably more like 50%. So if we assume that 5% are hot, 50% are charming, and these variables are independent-- then college women are actually chasing the top 52.5% of the men.

Clearly you did in fact think that I was saying the top 50% of smart people is good enough.

It's fine to disagree with me about what level of intelligence is required to get women to date you instead of a hot guy they could also date. But you did say that I was saying 50%, and I did correct you, because you were wrong, and I did say what level of intelligence I was talking about only as part of that.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:33 am

The original comment I responded to was: "I say we even though I am not hot because I am intelligent, funny, arrogant, and charming, and it works out pretty similarly."

So your original claim was that being smart is as good as being hot, with which I agree. We disagree about how many people are smart enough. But you don't get to say that the word "smart" automatically refers to the top 5% of the population.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed May 18, 2011 3:11 am

Orion wrote:The original comment I responded to was: "I say we even though I am not hot because I am intelligent, funny, arrogant, and charming, and it works out pretty similarly."

So your original claim was that being smart is as good as being hot, with which I agree. We disagree about how many people are smart enough. But you don't get to say that the word "smart" automatically refers to the top 5% of the population.

But I do get to clarify that when I said that I meant top 5%, which is why you explicitly put "You appear to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong)" and then made reference to 50% smart being able to get women. I am explicitly saying that only the very top have the ability to act like hot guys without being them, and that is not 50%, it is much closer to 5%.

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:05 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1A5I5gjUp

Yeah, I don't think so. You don't need to be that smart to act like a hot guy and get away with it.

All you need is game, which this guy obviously had a decent amount of.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:32 am

Certainly blowing large amounts of money like you don't care is a good way to get random strangers to sleep with you. So is not having a fear of rejection.

If you proposition 30 or a hundred women, the chances that one of them will go home with you are pretty good. So if you just go to the next one every time a woman rejects you, over the course of a night you can sleep with some woman practically every night.

-Username17

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:37 am

Kaelik wrote:I think that in general, most women end up dating guys who are less attractive than them, but are still relatively ballpark, and have some other endearing qualities (when I see no endearing qualities, I assume they are great in bed). Men on the other hand generally set unreasonably expectations in their hotness level, and then eventually find some girl who is actually better looking to settle for them.

This implies that you think men are on average less hot than women. True/false?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:05 am

False. He could also think that the most attractive men are homosexual.

EDIT: or, more generally, that the distribution of homosexuality among males with respect to attractiveness is more top-heavy than the corresponding distribution among females.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed May 18, 2011 3:16 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Kaelik wrote:I think that in general, most women end up dating guys who are less attractive than them, but are still relatively ballpark, and have some other endearing qualities (when I see no endearing qualities, I assume they are great in bed). Men on the other hand generally set unreasonably expectations in their hotness level, and then eventually find some girl who is actually better looking to settle for them.
This implies that you think men are on average less hot than women. True/false?

Considering that Kaelik is most likely a heterosexual, he probably does find women more attractive than men.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed May 18, 2011 3:18 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Certainly blowing large amounts of money like you don't care is a good way to get random strangers to sleep with you. So is not having a fear of rejection.

If you proposition 30 or a hundred women, the chances that one of them will go home with you are pretty good. So if you just go to the next one every time a woman rejects you, over the course of a night you can sleep with some woman practically every night.

-Username17

One thing I did a while back was go to a bar out of town where no one knew me, and asked every single woman there if she'd like me to do them in the butt. Not a single one said yes (and in fact, I would have been creeped out if they said yes to a stranger offering them anal sex), but after that getting rejected didn't bother me anymore.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:33 pm

Frank wrote:If you proposition 30 or a hundred women, the chances that one of them will go home with you are pretty good. So if you just go to the next one every time a woman rejects you, over the course of a night you can sleep with some woman practically every night.

It's also worth considering what distribution of qualities lead to the highest chance of a 'yes.' I don't think the goal is to take home a woman, the goal is to take home an attractive woman. And depending on your individual standards (and how drunk you are), the number of attractive women at any given bar may be significantly less than 30, and the sample size required to get a single yes may also be significantly more than 100 (depending on how attractive they consider you, and how drunk they are). Moral of the story: alcohol solves all problems - it will make attractive women sleep with you, and if that doesn't work it will make unattractive women who will already sleep with you attractive. It's magical.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:24 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote: Considering that Kaelik is most likely a heterosexual, he probably does find women more attractive than men.

I'm assuming the standard on male hotness hes using is divorced from how much he wants to make hot man love to them.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:30 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:One thing I did a while back was go to a bar out of town where no one knew me, and asked every single woman there if she'd like me to do them in the butt. Not a single one said yes (and in fact, I would have been creeped out if they said yes to a stranger offering them anal sex), but after that getting rejected didn't bother me anymore.

Well, shit, that's one way to work through that particular hangup.

If I didn't feel like reciprocating a woman's interest while I was out I would get rid of them by telling them, "I'm interested, but only if you bring along a friend". They never brought along a friend.

and

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu May 19, 2011 2:43 am

1) I actually believe that most attractive men engage in serial sex or extremely short term "relationships" unworthy of the name, before jumping ship, whereas the hottest women end up eventually, after being or having serialed a bit, pick up a guy beneath them, and that then it trickles down enough that unattractive women are proportionally more likely to be single than equally unattractive men.

2) I do use the standard of how much I want to make hot man love, I see no better standard.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu May 19, 2011 7:23 pm

Kaelik wrote:1) I actually believe that most attractive men engage in serial sex or extremely short term "relationships" unworthy of the name, before jumping ship, whereas the hottest women end up eventually, after being or having serialed a bit, pick up a guy beneath them,

Clarification request: When you say "a guy beneath them" you mean in appearance, right?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu May 19, 2011 9:20 pm

Maj wrote:
Kaelik wrote:1) I actually believe that most attractive men engage in serial sex or extremely short term "relationships" unworthy of the name, before jumping ship, whereas the hottest women end up eventually, after being or having serialed a bit, pick up a guy beneath them,
Clarification request: When you say "a guy beneath them" you mean in appearance, right?

1) Yes

2) But as specified, I think they choose them based on some meaningful other considerations, but, the guy could still be beneath them in general, as well as physically, or he could be way smarter than them, could go either way.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu May 19, 2011 10:51 pm

mean_liar wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:One thing I did a while back was go to a bar out of town where no one knew me, and asked every single woman there if she'd like me to do them in the butt. Not a single one said yes (and in fact, I would have been creeped out if they said yes to a stranger offering them anal sex), but after that getting rejected didn't bother me anymore.
Well, shit, that's one way to work through that particular hangup.

If I didn't feel like reciprocating a woman's interest while I was out I would get rid of them by telling them, "I'm interested, but only if you bring along a friend". They never brought along a friend. and

Interesting side story: I've dated several bi women in my adventures. Most of them said they were totally down for threesome with other women. Without exception, they were a bit shocked when they found out I knew other bi women and actually was prepared to set them up.

My theory is that bi women are more interesting in teasing then they are fucking. Which might be a bad theory; I will not hold on to the theory in light of data to the contrary. (One woman used to talk about a MFF threesome she had, but when we had sex it was always the same: Her on top only, no foreplay unless I was giving her oral, and she climaxed in three or four minutes then fell asleep. I'm sure if I wanted to date a man it wouldn't be too hard for me to find a willing partner.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:34 am

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:04 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
Interesting side story: I've dated several bi women in my adventures. Most of them said they were totally down for threesome with other women. Without exception, they were a bit shocked when they found out I knew other bi women and actually was prepared to set them up.

My theory is that bi women are more interesting in teasing then they are fucking. Which might be a bad theory; I will not hold on to the theory in light of data to the contrary. (One woman used to talk about a MFF threesome she had, but when we had sex it was always the same: Her on top only, no foreplay unless I was giving her oral, and she climaxed in three or four minutes then fell asleep. I'm sure if I wanted to date a man it wouldn't be too hard for me to find a willing partner.

Huh. My experience with bi women is that they like to seduce nominally straight women for threesomes.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:07 am

Maj wrote: Clarification request: When you say "a guy beneath them" you mean in appearance, right?

An observation I've had is that what straight guys think straight women would like in other men is rarely what they actually like.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:24 am

I prefer to use a more objective metric for whether some guy is "good enough" for some sexy woman.

If she is having sex with him, then clearly, he must be "good enough".

My personal opinion of the guy? Largely irrelevant.

It's really much easier to make sense of human relationships if you deal with them as they actual exist in the real world rather than, say, how you personally prefer or imagine they should be.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:02 pm

My main experience with bi girls is entirely pleasant: a lot of them aren't up for threesomes because, get this, they are monogamous - they don't feel they need "one of each". So sometimes they have a boyfriend, sometimes a girlfriend, sometimes neither.

So just like anyone else, but with more options. For that, I envy them.