3 ms·

Are you seriously asking me about metrics? You're entire post is a bunch of anecdotes. I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you. > T

Are you seriously asking me about metrics? You're entire post is a bunch of anecdotes. I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you. > The empathy and connection has been built successfully, and no amount of ex post facto chastisement about "hey you were just dehumanized and disrespected" tends to register. This doesn't even make sense. You call it chastisement but then put dehumanized and disprespected in quotes. Why? Are you disagreeing that it's dehumanizing? Or that it actually is dehumanizing and disrespectful, but that doesn't matter at this point? I can tell you personally that 1. If it's the case that you disagree in it being dehumanizing. Fine, that is your opinion. I disagree and think it is dehumanizing and if someone said that to me after sex I would be pissed and lose interest. How about myself for a reference no data needed. This isn't just about Women on tinder. 2. If it's the case that you agree it's dehumanizing, but because empathy and connection have been built it doesn't matter. Again it's your opinion that it doesn't matter after a connection has been built and I disagree strongly. If you think I'm the only human who disagrees ok... I don't know what the numbers are, and I even stated in another post that there's nothing wrong an approach like this, but some people will clearly see it differently

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you. I provided a measurable piece of data for my conclusions, which I'll put in pseudo-code: CLASS partner; //object to define each sex partner, most variables omitted for simplicity BOOL ahole; //dickish statement made post-coitus BOOL itsover; //relationship terminated by other party INT terminated; //just a counter FLOAT failure_rate; RANGE(partners): IF (ahole AND itsover): terminated++ failure_rate = terminated / COUNT(partners); The sample size may be small from a statistician's perspective, but the results are nevertheless measurable and, more importantly, actionable, at the individual level. So basically I'm asking you, what does your "shallowness" function look like in similar pseudo-code? And I'm asserting that whatever variables you include, if we did a deep dive on them we would find some characteristic or behavior that the jerk in the equation could optimize for in order to maintain a favorable outcome. >>>1. If it's the case that you disagree in it being dehumanizing. Yes, option 1. But I'm a member of an organization that considers being called a "Steely-Eyed Baby Killer" a sort of compliment, so I'm sure you and I have vastly different Overton Windows for what constitutes dehumanizing commentary. >>>I disagree and think it is dehumanizing and if someone said that to me after sex I would be pissed and lose interest. How about myself for a reference no data needed. As I said before, what people SAY and what they actually DO are very often not the same. More importantly, they rarely even realize the cognitive dissonance. Data has to be collected from the party doing the seduction, which has a totally different frame of reference. Hence the analogy "Don't ask a fish how to catch fish, ask a fisherman." >>>"Again it's your opinion that it doesn't matter after a connection has been built and I disagree strongly. If you think I'm the only human who disagrees ok." Well let's circle allllll the way back to my original comment. I caveat-ed my position with a "tends to". Of course there is always some non-zero population for which the above doesn't apply. But the salient points are that a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not. Any guy with a sufficiently-deep notch count can corroborate that. In order for my position to be false, the same high-notch count guys would have to be experiencing abnormally-high post-coital rejections due to assholish commentary, and that's definitely NOT the case.
- mnsc 7y ago
  You are not the OP my reply was directed to but I'll answer your question. > Have you ever told a woman, after coitus, how you ran the same Game on them that you've run dozens of times before? ... They'll usually just laugh it off / not take it seriously. Nope. But to my defense I haven't had a single ONS so I don't know how my bedside talk would be in that situation. I don't see myself as a dick so I don't think I would go for the "you know what, I used that routine on all the other ladies I had sex with and in my opinion you are just a system of pleasure spots and when I press them in the right order you go to heaven, funny huh?" And your phone blowing up means you are a cunning cunnilinguist that women like to use to get off. Not that you necessarily is a decent person. > a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not. And based on your comments I have a hard time seeing a decent respectful person. But you seem to be a good lay! Are you bi?
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment with a worse one, especially not by crossing into personal attack. Doing that helps nothing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mnsc 7y ago
      Those guidelines are the best on the internet and has stopped me from writing many comments! But sometimes still someone ticks me the wrong way and I venture down to the low levels and fight the ogres ogre-way. When that happens I usually feel appropriately ashamed and quit internet a couple of days to be able to return with the energy required to follow the guidelines again! Thank you for your patience/work!

CapricornNoble 7y ago

>>>I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you. I provided a measurable piece of data for my conclusions, which I'll put in pseudo-code: CLASS partner; //object to define each sex partner, most variables omitted for simplicity BOOL ahole; //dickish statement made post-coitus BOOL itsover; //relationship terminated by other party INT terminated; //just a counter FLOAT failure_rate; RANGE(partners): IF (ahole AND itsover): terminated++ failure_rate = terminated / COUNT(partners); The sample size may be small from a statistician's perspective, but the results are nevertheless measurable and, more importantly, actionable, at the individual level. So basically I'm asking you, what does your "shallowness" function look like in similar pseudo-code? And I'm asserting that whatever variables you include, if we did a deep dive on them we would find some characteristic or behavior that the jerk in the equation could optimize for in order to maintain a favorable outcome. >>>1. If it's the case that you disagree in it being dehumanizing. Yes, option 1. But I'm a member of an organization that considers being called a "Steely-Eyed Baby Killer" a sort of compliment, so I'm sure you and I have vastly different Overton Windows for what constitutes dehumanizing commentary. >>>I disagree and think it is dehumanizing and if someone said that to me after sex I would be pissed and lose interest. How about myself for a reference no data needed. As I said before, what people SAY and what they actually DO are very often not the same. More importantly, they rarely even realize the cognitive dissonance. Data has to be collected from the party doing the seduction, which has a totally different frame of reference. Hence the analogy "Don't ask a fish how to catch fish, ask a fisherman." >>>"Again it's your opinion that it doesn't matter after a connection has been built and I disagree strongly. If you think I'm the only human who disagrees ok." Well let's circle allllll the way back to my original comment. I caveat-ed my position with a "tends to". Of course there is always some non-zero population for which the above doesn't apply. But the salient points are that a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not. Any guy with a sufficiently-deep notch count can corroborate that. In order for my position to be false, the same high-notch count guys would have to be experiencing abnormally-high post-coital rejections due to assholish commentary, and that's definitely NOT the case.

mnsc 7y ago
You are not the OP my reply was directed to but I'll answer your question. > Have you ever told a woman, after coitus, how you ran the same Game on them that you've run dozens of times before? ... They'll usually just laugh it off / not take it seriously. Nope. But to my defense I haven't had a single ONS so I don't know how my bedside talk would be in that situation. I don't see myself as a dick so I don't think I would go for the "you know what, I used that routine on all the other ladies I had sex with and in my opinion you are just a system of pleasure spots and when I press them in the right order you go to heaven, funny huh?" And your phone blowing up means you are a cunning cunnilinguist that women like to use to get off. Not that you necessarily is a decent person. > a) a system model is applicable b) the model can be optimized c) the optimization is fault-tolerant significantly more often than not. And based on your comments I have a hard time seeing a decent respectful person. But you seem to be a good lay! Are you bi?
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment with a worse one, especially not by crossing into personal attack. Doing that helps nothing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mnsc 7y ago
    Those guidelines are the best on the internet and has stopped me from writing many comments! But sometimes still someone ticks me the wrong way and I venture down to the low levels and fight the ogres ogre-way. When that happens I usually feel appropriately ashamed and quit internet a couple of days to be able to return with the energy required to follow the guidelines again! Thank you for your patience/work!