The DoubtingThomas dating / relationships MEGATHREAD

[_Jersey Girl]

DT when you think about a woman's character what character traits do you think are admirable?

[_DoubtingThomas]

DT when you think about a woman's character what character traits do you think are admirable?

Nice would be the most impotant thing for me. I would love to find a woman that is all into technology or astronomy.

[_Jersey Girl]

DT when you think about a woman's character what character traits do you think are admirable?

Nice would be the most impotant thing for me.

What do you mean by nice?






This isn't about character:

I would love to find a woman that is all into technology or astronomy.

[_Jersey Girl]

Interests

"I would love to find a woman that is all into technology or astronomy"

So...invite your now quarantined lady friend to join you in something like this when it's offered again.

APR
24
Nationwide Livestream Star Party

Public · Hosted by Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory - "FLWO" and 9 others

[_EAllusion]

Statistical significance doesn't mean "a lot." It's colloquial equivalent is closer to "the observed difference has a fairly low probability of being due to random chance."

Since this seems to escape you, I should point out your comments are both sexist towards men and women DT. I, for one, resent you describing men as conniving users of women who feign interest in them as persons. Vaguely attributing your personal bigotries to "evolution" also is offensive to evolutionary biology. Misogyny is the font from which this flows: you assume your culturally specific misogyny is rooted in biological maleness in order to universalize it, but it ends up being sexist towards men as a result.

[_Jersey Girl]

My previous comment about EA: I sometimes think his responses are more suitable to this discussion.

He just posted a glaring and obvious example of why I said that:

Statistical significance doesn't mean "a lot." It's colloquial equivalent is closer to "the observed difference has a fairly low probability of being due to random chance."

Since this seems to escape you, I should point out your comments are both sexist towards men and women DT. I, for one, resent you describing men as conniving users of women who feign interest in them as persons. Vaguely attributing your personal bigotries to "evolution" also is offensive to evolutionary biology. Misogyny is the font from which this flows: you assume your culturally specific misogyny is rooted in biological maleness in order to universalize it, but it ends up being sexist towards men as a result.

[_DoubtingThomas]

. I, for one, resent you describing men as conniving users of women who feign interest in them as persons.

That is not what I meant. Think of your children, you love them unconditionally don't you? Or does your love for them depend on their accomplishements, views, and personality? I am honestly not that picky.

Statistical significance doesn't mean "a lot." It's colloquial equivalent is closer to "the observed difference has a fairly low probability of being due to random chance."

That is much better than Lemmies comments. Would you please explain my sexism please.

What do you mean by nice?

That is an intersing question. I guess for me a "nice person" is someone cares about others. I want to find a girl that thinks I am entertaining. Here is what a dating coach said (See after 8:17)
https://youtu.be/3Vacr_koFW4?t=497

What do you think?

[Guest]

Interests

"I would love to find a woman that is all into technology or astronomy"

So...invite your now quarantined lady friend to join you in something like this when it's offered again.

APR
24
Nationwide Livestream Star Party

Public · Hosted by Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory - "FLWO" and 9 others

Yes, Jersey Girl. I will try to do it.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Vaguely attributing your personal bigotries to "evolution" also is offensive

" Results were in line with the previous findings and showed that, with artificial faces as well, sexual attraction is less influenced by morality in men than in women. This gender difference is consistent with an evolutionary perspective on human sexuality."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29388505

"This contrasts with male mate choice which largely focuses on indicators of fertility and child bearing capacities such as youth (Buss and Schmitt, 2017). Thus, female social status is less relevant to males, and females are comparatively less concerned about their own social status (Low et al., 2002)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478767/

[_EAllusion]

Those studies don't support what you are saying even if you accept the findings uncritically. You attempt to portray yourself as someone who relies on science for decision-making DT, but a little experience with your posting reveals that it's something near the exact opposite. You come to views for other reasons, then troll for papers you think support your views. You don't read them to learn; you read them to support predetermined conclusions. This is an inversion of scientific learning. And because you don't appear to be able to understand what you are reading, you consistently use bad citations.

You cannot even wield cringey evo-psych effectively because you overreach on the claims and don't understand how papers fit within them.