Hey mate - I actually went to your profile to look for an email to write you. This other comment you made was so subtly funny I laughed quite a bit when I saw it:
"Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say."
I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it.
> I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality,
Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.)
> that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits,
Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this.
I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with.
For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually.
> and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.
This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.
> For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually.
Could you elaborate on this? I find a woman to be higher 'quality' if she is forgiving of weakness. But maybe I'm just interpreting the words 'strong/weak' in the wrong way. Perhaps you meant to say that 'quality' women value integrity. In that case I would agree with you.
I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. [snip]
For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak.
External assertiveness and internal strength usually go together, and when it comes to attraction, women don't seem to actively distinguish between them. They're attracted to cockiness. They do, however, notice when somebody points out that the two things aren't in sync. Make a cocky guy look like a fool, and you've turned his cockiness into a negative. Wit is the key.
However, wit and foolishness are in the eye of the beholder. Your wit might turn one woman's head and mystify the rest. You can adapt your wit to your audience to a certain extent, but it's more realistic to focus on an audience that is capable of appreciating you. You're never going to undermine a stereotypical sexy worthless asshole in the eyes of a sexy worthless bimbo; they're made for each other, and everybody else should just get out of the way.
Yes, I must have yanked that from the documentary about Feynman called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out", which I saw when it first aired as an episode of NOVA in the 80s. I just looked it up because I haven't seen it since, and it's one of the first thing he mentions:
"Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say."
I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it.
> I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality,
Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.)
> that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits,
Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this.
I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with.
For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually.
> and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.
This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.