Two pieces of advice for different circumstances:

If you're looking for a relationship - go find yourself a life! If you've been meaning to learn a muscial instrument, go find one. Take up that martial art you've always been curious about. Go jump out of a plane with a parachute for the adrenalin rush. Take a trip somewhere completely random. Basically, keep yourself occupied, interesting, having fun, and eventually your eyes will open up to the possibilities. (and if you're not meeting anyone, at least you're having fun and too busy to contemplate not meeting anyone)

If you're just looking to get laid, or even just how to increase your chances of meeting someone) go google:
David DeAngelo
Mystery Method
'The Game' by Neil Strauss

(although all the above CAN be used in parts for relationship purposes)

Seldon2639:

If it were a singular event, from which the girl learned something, it would be one thing. Given that most of the girls I've known who have dated jerks and disliked the results end up making it habitual, I'm all but forced to conclude that there is a deeper psychopathology at work.

I'd say the psychopathology need go no deeper than 'people are inefficient when it comes to self-improvement, especially learning from singular events'. I think you're multiplying entities needlessly to arrive at an explanation.

To argue that humans "always bemoan the choice" when it comes time to face consequences, and from that infer that the choice may still be rational is something I find erroneous (again, with all due respect). Many people do bemoan choices, but only because they failed to make proper provisions for long-term well-being, which is inherently illogical. By putting primacy on the present (and present happiness) rather than the future (and future happiness) we are not being reasoned and rational.

That's not a valid argument: if present happiness will outweigh future happiness, then "putting primacy on the present" is very "reasoned and rational." If someone bemoans eating a fresh apple yesterday instead of saving it and having stale apple today, would you say they "failed to make proper provisions for long-term well-being"?

We come down to a disagreement about what constitutes a rational act. You view prioritizing temporary and instant "fun" over long-term happiness

Heh--I'd say I'm not, and that you are doing the inverse: prioritizing long-term freedom from unhappiness over temporary and instant "fun".

On the order of events thing, I don't know why, but I see sex as an inherently important thing (and, not to get too personal, but unless I'm emotionally connected to the girl in question, am unable), so I need to get the friendship part (which is the emotional connection for me) working before I can progress at all

I see sex as an inherently important thing as well. I don't see why a friendship is a necessary prerequisite to seeing sex as inherently important for any and all humans. I'm sure you have *your* reasons, but, aren't they all personal to your own makeup?

Laquatus_Vanguard:

Seldon2639:

Laquatus_Vanguard:
women date jerks for the same reason some like serial killers, its the "bad boy aura" and most think they can change them. (or the woman is submissive)

My advice is A) dont be a jerk because it either never works out or you become that abusive husband who shows up on next weeks episode of cops
B)learn to love meetspot, myspace and facebook.
C)find a gamer girlfriend
or D)do what i did, introduce her to a game or two after awhile, i have a girl for over a year that i can have my fun with and afterwards play Dynasty Warriors co op with

It's a possibility, but what causes some girls to succumb to the "bad boy aura", and others manage to avoid it?

gullibility?

What accounts for the different levels of gullibility? I'm only getting at the fact that no matter how you define this, we eventually need to come down to some experience, or set of experiences, or quality, or set of qualities, which distinguished those girls who will fall prey to jerks from those who won't

@Cheeze:

"I'd say the psychopathology need go no deeper than 'people are inefficient when it comes to self-improvement, especially learning from singular events'. I think you're multiplying entities needlessly to arrive at an explanation."

One should never multiply entities where no evidence exists for them is Occam's actual warning. I'll agree that people are generally inefficient, but this requires no greater entity. This is all self-continued within the mind of an individual, and (therefore) requires only one entity. But, you just conceded my core point: it is a lack of logic, rather than the presence of logic, that leads to this. The inefficiency in the learning process is both example of the lack of logic in most human experience, and the cause of the lack of logic in this particular instance

"That's not a valid argument: if present happiness will outweigh future happiness, then "putting primacy on the present" is very "reasoned and rational." If someone bemoans eating a fresh apple yesterday instead of saving it and having stale apple today, would you say they "failed to make proper provisions for long-term well-being"?"

Under certain circumstances, you are correct, the opportunity cost (which is the real issue you're dealing with) of not taking action in the now can outweigh the risk of said action. It, however, is not applicable in this case. Your argument hinges on the assumption that the two choices are either (a) eat the apple (being with the jerk), or (b) don't eat the apple (don't be with anyone). But, the fallacy of a false dichotomy aside, there is the choice to (c) buy the corn (choose a "nice" guy). Your dichotomy assumes that the opportunity cost is almost 100%, where I would argue it isn't. If we accept that a "nice" guy will be a better boyfriend in the long term, then the only way dating a "jerk" is logical is if the short-term happiness outweighs both the long-term happiness gained with the "nice" guy and the long-term unhappiness that would result from dating the jerk. Given that all (and I do mean all) of the girls I've known who have dated jerks have indicated that the short-term happiness was less than the long-term unhappiness, the net gain from the nice guy is larger, and therefore more logical.

"Heh--I'd say I'm not, and that you are doing the inverse: prioritizing long-term freedom from unhappiness over temporary and instant "fun"."

I chose my words specifically. I do not simply mean freedom from unhappiness, I mean both freedom from unhappiness, and an increase in long-term happiness gained by dating a "nice" guy. While the Epicureans may argue that a lack of pain is pleasure, I think there's more to be gained by dating a nice guy than simply absence of pain. Aside from that, I agree, logic dictates that we do whichever brings greater total gain. In this case, the only way the jerk has greater positive gain for the woman is if the short-term fun is greater than the long-term "fun" of a nice guy, and the long-term pain of the jerk (opportunity costs again). I've made this point twice because it's really important

"I see sex as an inherently important thing as well. I don't see why a friendship is a necessary prerequisite to seeing sex as inherently important for any and all humans. I'm sure you have *your* reasons, but, aren't they all personal to your own makeup?"

They certainly are, and my entire point has been that neither can be viewed as inherently "better" than the other. You extolled the virtues of your way, to which I felt compelled to respond

Seldon2639:
Again, without a study, my logic and experience will run headlong into yours, and we both end up failing to "prove" anything.

I think we will--my experiences (even as rather unattractive male) were the opposite of yours in dealing with good looking people, even just as friends.

"A girl doesn't have to have low self-confidence to fit into my hypothesis. My theory can cover the behavior of women with both high AND low self-confidence.

I mean, let's face it: we're not *really* interested in why screwed up girls date jerks. We're interested in why *women who seem to have their shit together* date jerks."

The fact that your explanation (if true) covers more does not indicate that it is more true.

That does make something a better theory, though. Entities ought not to be multiplied except through necessity, so whichever theory explains more (if both are 'true') is the superior one.

You said it yourself, we're interested in why "women who seem to have their shit together" [emphasis added]. I, of course, based on my experience with such girls (who seem to have their act together, but who also date jerks), have concluded that they really don't have it together.

You assume that it's possible to find discrete reasons for these actions, I believe them to be interconnected. If your explanation were applicable, all girls would go for jerks (which they don't). How do you, then, account for that, given that jerks represent in the collective unconscious (to crib Jung) of women a greater amount of excitement and fun. Why are some girls able to think long-term, and others not?

I account for it by bringing up that there's a big difference between 'having your shit together' and 'knowing enough about the world to make good choices.' It doesn't matter how high your self-confidence is: you can make a punishing mistake without any subconscious desire to 'punish' yourself if you make your decision based on bad data.

"That does make something a better theory, though. Entities ought not to be multiplied except through necessity, so whichever theory explains more (if both are 'true') is the superior one."

That's a massive misinterpretation of Occam's Razor (though I congratulate you on being right about the quotation). Given that the "entity" in question is an individual, and given that you've yet to prove that there actually *are* two discrete groups of women for whom our theories have to account (which is not granted by fiat), you've not shown that I've multiplied any entities. Second, it is not an admonition against any addition of new actors into a set of circumstances, merely an admonition against addition of actors for which there is no evidence. To argue that it indicates that simplicity indicates the best theory is to ignore not only Occam's intent, but many examples in which the "simplest" answer is (to quote H.L Mencken) "always an easy solution to every problem - neat, plausible and wrong." Think about how babies come into existence. One stork, or a complex physiological process by which the D.N.A of two separate people are combined to make a new being. If there's evidence for it, adding new entities is something Occam encouraged. I have evidence for my theory, at least as much as you have for yours.

"I account for it by bringing up that there's a big difference between 'having your shit together' and 'knowing enough about the world to make good choices.' It doesn't matter how high your self-confidence is: you can make a punishing mistake without any subconscious desire to 'punish' yourself if you make your decision based on bad data."

Except then you have to backtrack a moment. If the girls who choose to date jerks are basing it on not "knowing enough about the world to make good choices", then we must accept that they lack sufficient knowledge, and yet are making decisions. If one makes a decision based on insufficient knowledge, it is inherently a "bad" decision (which answers your original question), and by definition illogical (especially if the lack of complete knowledge is willful in nature) which supports my hypothesis.

By the by, we can't call our explanations "theories", they aren't. They're hypotheses.

sma_warrior:
Two pieces of advice for different circumstances:

If you're looking for a relationship - go find yourself a life! If you've been meaning to learn a muscial instrument, go find one. Take up that martial art you've always been curious about. Go jump out of a plane with a parachute for the adrenalin rush. Take a trip somewhere completely random. Basically, keep yourself occupied, interesting, having fun, and eventually your eyes will open up to the possibilities. (and if you're not meeting anyone, at least you're having fun and too busy to contemplate not meeting anyone)

If you're just looking to get laid, or even just how to increase your chances of meeting someone) go google:
David DeAngelo
Mystery Method
'The Game' by Neil Strauss

(although all the above CAN be used in parts for relationship purposes)

These methods are (a) massively unscientific, having never been tested in any kind of double-blind (or even single-blind) study, and hence cannot claim to be truly effective, and (b) are based solely on the laws of large numbers. If you'd care to, you should read my earlier posts, and the responses, which (I feel, though I don't wish to appear self-righteous) to give a good rebuttal to those methods you describe.

Seldon2639:

One should never multiply entities where no evidence exists for them is Occam's actual warning. I'll agree that people are generally inefficient, but this requires no greater entity. This is all self-continued within the mind of an individual, and (therefore) requires only one entity.

No--entities refers to *anything* whether they are persons, places, or things, not just "individuals." Additional psychopathology is an additional entity.

But, you just conceded my core point: it is a lack of logic, rather than the presence of logic, that leads to this.

Your core point was never about a lack of logic in *learning* from an experience, but about a lack of logic in the choice of one experience over another in the first place.

Under certain circumstances, you are correct, the opportunity cost (which is the real issue you're dealing with) of not taking action in the now can outweigh the risk of said action. It, however, is not applicable in this case. Your argument hinges on the assumption that the two choices are either (a) eat the apple (being with the jerk), or (b) don't eat the apple (don't be with anyone). But, the fallacy of a false dichotomy aside, there is the choice to (c) buy the corn (choose a "nice" guy).

It's not a false dichotomy--these girls don't think they'd like corn.

If we accept that a "nice" guy will be a better boyfriend in the long term

That's just it--these girls don't accept that. They don't like corn man--whaddaya gonna do?

"I see sex as an inherently important thing as well. I don't see why a friendship is a necessary prerequisite to seeing sex as inherently important for any and all humans. I'm sure you have *your* reasons, but, aren't they all personal to your own makeup?"

They certainly are, and my entire point has been that neither can be viewed as inherently "better" than the other. You extolled the virtues of your way, to which I felt compelled to respond

If you've going to respond to say that "neither can be viewed as inherently "better" than the other" you should steer clear of words with heavy connotations like "important" when responding--those kinda words are cross-wise with your purpose of just responding without judging.

Seldon2639:

"That does make something a better theory, though. Entities ought not to be multiplied except through necessity, so whichever theory explains more (if both are 'true') is the superior one."

That's a massive misinterpretation of Occam's Razor (though I congratulate you on being right about the quotation). Given that the "entity" in question is an individual,

Actually, I was talking about factors, not individuals--see my other post: I think you take the term 'entity' too literally.

Except then you have to backtrack a moment. If the girls who choose to date jerks are basing it on not "knowing enough about the world to make good choices", then we must accept that they lack sufficient knowledge, and yet are making decisions. If one makes a decision based on insufficient knowledge, it is inherently a "bad" decision.

Only if you are aware that it's insufficient knowledge. Nothing illogical about making a decision based on insufficient knowledge when you think you have sufficient knowledge.

By the by, we can't call our explanations "theories", they aren't. They're hypotheses.

We're not really in any specific academic subject--we can call them whatever we want: theory, hypothesis, thesis, whatever.

"It's not a false dichotomy--these girls don't think they'd like corn."

Nonono, you're now changing the circumstances to suit your argument. Your original argument was that jerks are more "exciting" and "fun", which segued into "short-term" (which you accepted by fiat). To now come back and attempt to change it to the girls viewing the jerks as a better long-term investment (wanting an apple rather than the corn in general) is spurious. Again, you yourself said that the girls were complaining about the jerks after the fun part was over, but only because they've arrived at the time to pay the piper. If this is true, then there is (de facto) a time limit on the happiness brought by the jerk in a relationship. If this is true, it is inherently a short-term investment. Therefore, the choice is (as it always was) mainly between short-term happiness and long-term happiness. Attempting to change that to short-term happiness versus long-term lack of unhappiness is specious at best.

"That's just it--these girls don't accept that. They don't like corn man--whaddaya gonna do?"

No, that's not a true statement. No girl I've spoken to in my life has viewed a jerk as a better long-term relationship, especially those who have been in a relationship with a jerk. Their act of prioritizing short-term (if a smaller magnitude of) happiness over long-term (if a larger magnitude of) happiness is by definition illogical, irrespective of what premises they grant.

By the way, you keep dropping about half of my arguments from the discussion. Is that indication that you agree with them, or accept them, or what? My point on Occam's razor was more complicated than you quoted, or responded to, so were my corn-based arguments. I'm just wondering. If this is that you fundamentally accept the rest, that's groovy. If this is a surreptitious attempt to shift the argument by not responding to the points of mine you don't think you can discredit, it's a little irksome. Again, I mean no insult, of course

Seldon2639:

sma_warrior:
Two pieces of advice for different circumstances:

If you're looking for a relationship - go find yourself a life! If you've been meaning to learn a muscial instrument, go find one. Take up that martial art you've always been curious about. Go jump out of a plane with a parachute for the adrenalin rush. Take a trip somewhere completely random. Basically, keep yourself occupied, interesting, having fun, and eventually your eyes will open up to the possibilities. (and if you're not meeting anyone, at least you're having fun and too busy to contemplate not meeting anyone)

If you're just looking to get laid, or even just how to increase your chances of meeting someone) go google:
David DeAngelo
Mystery Method
'The Game' by Neil Strauss

(although all the above CAN be used in parts for relationship purposes)

These methods are (a) massively unscientific, having never been tested in any kind of double-blind (or even single-blind) study, and hence cannot claim to be truly effective

The thing is, there are times when it makes no sense to wait around until there are studies--let alone blind-anything---before making a decision. I mean, you don't advise those female friends you're talking about not to date *either* jerks or nice guys until you can find them a study, do you?

"Actually, I was talking about factors, not individuals--see my other post: I think you take the term 'entity' too literally."

Again, you're ignoring about half-a-paragraph explaining the rest of this. I don't know what to make of this anymore. You're taking a few choice sentences out of context, in an attempt to make the entire argument I make sound unreasonable in this regard.

"Only if you are aware that it's insufficient knowledge. Nothing illogical about making a decision based on insufficient knowledge when you think you have sufficient knowledge."

That's a valid point, though I would argue that the belief one has sufficient knowledge when one doesn't is by itself illogical (given that logic demands a constant search for greater knowledge). But, you also keep jumping back and forth between the argument that the girl is making a conscious choice based on the fact that she honestly prefers the jerk (having done an analysis of happiness gained versus happiness lost + gained), and the argument that she doesn't have sufficient knowledge. Either she can be somewhat logical and possess insufficient knowledge, or have sufficient knowledge and be illogical (it is a dichotomy, but I honestly can't come up with another possibility in this circumstance).

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Seldon2639:

sma_warrior:
Two pieces of advice for different circumstances:

If you're looking for a relationship - go find yourself a life! If you've been meaning to learn a muscial instrument, go find one. Take up that martial art you've always been curious about. Go jump out of a plane with a parachute for the adrenalin rush. Take a trip somewhere completely random. Basically, keep yourself occupied, interesting, having fun, and eventually your eyes will open up to the possibilities. (and if you're not meeting anyone, at least you're having fun and too busy to contemplate not meeting anyone)

If you're just looking to get laid, or even just how to increase your chances of meeting someone) go google:
David DeAngelo
Mystery Method
'The Game' by Neil Strauss

(although all the above CAN be used in parts for relationship purposes)

These methods are (a) massively unscientific, having never been tested in any kind of double-blind (or even single-blind) study, and hence cannot claim to be truly effective

The thing is, there are times when it makes no sense to wait around until there are studies--let alone blind-anything---before making a decision. I mean, you don't advise those female friends you're talking about not to date *either* jerks or nice guys until you can find them a study, do you?

My point, I suppose, was less than one should automatically disregard these views, but rather to not take them as the god's honest truth either. If someone's going to claim to have the answer for how guys can get girls, they should at least have some evidence to back it up, shouldn't they?

Seldon2639:

sma_warrior:
Two pieces of advice for different circumstances:

If you're looking for a relationship - go find yourself a life! If you've been meaning to learn a muscial instrument, go find one. Take up that martial art you've always been curious about. Go jump out of a plane with a parachute for the adrenalin rush. Take a trip somewhere completely random. Basically, keep yourself occupied, interesting, having fun, and eventually your eyes will open up to the possibilities. (and if you're not meeting anyone, at least you're having fun and too busy to contemplate not meeting anyone)

If you're just looking to get laid, or even just how to increase your chances of meeting someone) go google:
David DeAngelo
Mystery Method
'The Game' by Neil Strauss

(although all the above CAN be used in parts for relationship purposes)

These methods are (a) massively unscientific, having never been tested in any kind of double-blind (or even single-blind) study, and hence cannot claim to be truly effective, and (b) are based solely on the laws of large numbers. If you'd care to, you should read my earlier posts, and the responses, which (I feel, though I don't wish to appear self-righteous) to give a good rebuttal to those methods you describe.

You DO realise women DON'T work on logic, right? Just thought it might be good to clarify that point. And just so we DO clear things up, if women worked on logic, then no WAY would I have a girlfriend. I met my girlfriend through the former idea of having a life which only came about after working through the latter. As for scientific studies, it's been scientifically proven that about 1 in 10 kids being raised by the 'good, nice guy' father aren't actually his. I'd find the story again, except just spent a whole bunch of time reading through your posts.... I'm still wondering how you have provided a rebuttal to the methods I described.

I assume you were referring to DD,M,NS suggestions. Not one of them claims to be a silver bullet, but they all offer one hell of an insight into what's really going on dating wise. And like I said, they're great if you're looking just to get laid / meet more girls.

And as for your posts on being friends for the sake of being friends only makes me wonder how on Earth you got a girlfriend to begin with if that's really what you believe (and don't say the whole 'it just evolved' crap - that doesn't help anyone out).

I am kind of curious as to why you would dismiss trying to date a larger amount of girls (are based solely on the theory of large numbers), as you did mention earlier that many will be girls who are just disinterested - if you're only asking two girls out a year, and year after year you meet disinterested ones, chances are you're going to meet no-one...

Would write more and more in-depth, but I got a University Ball that requires attending to :P

Seldon2639:
But, you also keep jumping back and forth between the argument that the girl is making a conscious choice based on the fact that she honestly prefers the jerk (having done an analysis of happiness gained versus happiness lost + gained), and the argument that she doesn't have sufficient knowledge. Either she can be somewhat logical and possess insufficient knowledge, or have sufficient knowledge and be illogical (it is a dichotomy, but I honestly can't come up with another possibility in this circumstance).

I don't see how "she can be somewhat logical and possess insufficient knowledge" necessarily undercuts my point that she's being logical about choosing jerks over nice guys. For the sake of argument, I'll grant she's being illogical about seeking out more knowledge about guys. But that's being illogical about seeking out knowledge about boys, not about choosing jerks over nice guys, and therefore isn't relevant to what I said.

It has come to my attention that where relationships are involved, logic usually has aboslutely nothing to do with it. Maybe someday old uncle technoviking will tell you all about that.

Seldon2639:

Nonono, you're now changing the circumstances to suit your argument. Your original argument was that jerks are more "exciting" and "fun", which segued into "short-term" (which you accepted by fiat). To now come back and attempt to change it to the girls viewing the jerks as a better long-term investment (wanting an apple rather than the corn in general) is spurious.

Heh, I think the analogy got disconnected from what we're trying to say. There's a difference between a jerk being a bad long term investment and *dating jerks* being a better long-term *investment strategy.* Your points would only apply if a woman could only date *one* jerk or *one* nice guy over the course of her life.

By the way, you keep dropping about half of my arguments from the discussion. Is that indication that you agree with them, or accept them, or what?

It's an indication that whatever I'm saying is intended as a counter-point everything you are saying in that section whether quoted by me in response or not. If there's something in the parts I'm not quoting that you think I'm not responding to (that isn't contingent on something I *am* addressing, which is another reason I'm cutting parts out because they're conclusions and I disagree with the premise), please--bring it up again and show me how it makes a point that falls outside of the scope of my counter-point.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Seldon2639:
But, you also keep jumping back and forth between the argument that the girl is making a conscious choice based on the fact that she honestly prefers the jerk (having done an analysis of happiness gained versus happiness lost + gained), and the argument that she doesn't have sufficient knowledge. Either she can be somewhat logical and possess insufficient knowledge, or have sufficient knowledge and be illogical (it is a dichotomy, but I honestly can't come up with another possibility in this circumstance).

I don't see how "she can be somewhat logical and possess insufficient knowledge" necessarily undercuts my point that she's being logical about choosing jerks over nice guys. For the sake of argument, I'll grant she's being illogical about seeking out more knowledge about guys. But that's being illogical about seeking out knowledge about boys, not about choosing jerks over nice guys, and therefore isn't relevant to what I said.

Except I never claimed where the breakdown in logic occurred, only that there is a breakdown in logic. If that breakdown is merely that the girl is less informed than she should be in order to make a decision, that is fully within the bounds of "making illogical choices". One cannot be logical without having relatively complete information (I don't mean total knowledge, but at least enough to make a sensible decision). How can one be logical based on illogical underpinnings?

More generally, though, is that we do just keep butting heads on how we define reason, logic, and good versus bad choices. That's fine, but we're not going to get anywhere except to continue to argue in circles.

@Sma:

I don't deny that there are occasionally correlations between the "be a jerk" methods (I realize it's a glib interpretation, but it's also fairly late for me to be awake), but that's hardly confirmation of causation. Next time you're single, do me a favor: go ask out similar numbers of girls using the methods you provided, and then ask out the same number using a method of being a nice guy. I'd be surprised if you got actually divergent results. Again, the power of the "method" is to encourage men to ask out more women, from which there must inherently be an increase in positive response

Their insight, while based on a certain logical thought process, only works if you grant their premises (having read them myself, and attempted to follow the advice before concluding that it garners little if any benefit). If however, you refuse to grant that the primary thing women are attracted to is dominance (which includes confidence, assertiveness, "negs", playing hard to get, all of it), their arguments fall apart.

My view of the issue on that side of things is simple: there will always be some girls who will like you, and some who won't. This is based on your core personality, and on first impressions. There's little you can do to change it. If you go down to a bar some Friday night, there's a good chance that no matter what you do to try to find a girl, you'll find at least *a* girl. Friendship, or not, "method", or not.

I don't deny that the law of large numbers can work in certain circumstances, and insofar as it helps to encourage men to view rejection as less of a world-shattering event, it's fantastic. The issue is that it takes it a step further toward encouraging men to engage in behavior that (while effective in limited circumstances) degrades the entire group of us. Their best advice is to go out there to bars, go talk to girls. Their worst advice is that you can influence the outcome in much more than a very cursory sort of way

Finally, there's not a single book in that genre which doesn't bill itself as a one-stop shop for becoming a demi-god of sex. You did, however, preface your suggestion of those books by saying that the main goal of reading them would be to find a girl to sleep with, so I should not have snapped at you the way I did. I apologize for that.

Seldon2639:

My point, I suppose, was less than one should automatically disregard these views, but rather to not take them as the god's honest truth either. If someone's going to claim to have the answer for how guys can get girls, they should at least have some evidence to back it up, shouldn't they?

Well, responding with:

"These methods are (a) massively unscientific..."

does give people the impression you think "one should automatically disregard these views."

As far as evidence to back it up, well, sure. But what would that evidence even look like to you? How much these guys score? How much the techniques seem to be based on your pre-existing ideas about girls? What do you mean by the word 'evidence' when you ask for it?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Seldon2639:

Nonono, you're now changing the circumstances to suit your argument. Your original argument was that jerks are more "exciting" and "fun", which segued into "short-term" (which you accepted by fiat). To now come back and attempt to change it to the girls viewing the jerks as a better long-term investment (wanting an apple rather than the corn in general) is spurious.

Heh, I think the analogy got disconnected from what we're trying to say. There's a difference between a jerk being a bad long term investment and *dating jerks* being a better long-term *investment strategy.* Your points would only apply if a woman could only date *one* jerk or *one* nice guy over the course of her life.

By the way, you keep dropping about half of my arguments from the discussion. Is that indication that you agree with them, or accept them, or what?

It's an indication that whatever I'm saying is intended as a counter-point everything you are saying in that section whether quoted by me in response or not. If there's something in the parts I'm not quoting that you think I'm not responding to (that isn't contingent on something I *am* addressing, which is another reason I'm cutting parts out because they're conclusions and I disagree with the premise), please--bring it up again and show me how it makes a point that falls outside of the scope of my counter-point.

That's an interesting point. We would need to further delineate whether we're referring to the logic (or lack thereof) of dating any individual jerk, or dating any jerks in general. But, that's an argument for when I don't desperately need to sleep. That said, the opportunity cost of dating any jerk over any nice guy at any given time will be the same as I described earlier

You dropped my entire argument about Occam's Razor being more complicated than that the simplest answer is the most likely to be correct. When we discussed long-term versus short-term, you didn't respond at all to my point that when addressing the question of long-term versus short-term, the benefit to dating a nice guy is not only the happiness from the relationship itself, but the avoidance of the pain associated with the relationship with the jerk. There were more, but these were the recent ones. I only find it mildly bothersome because I don't feel your responses are sufficient to dispute my entire point in any given section, and thus feel... Miffed, I suppose. I do put a fair bit of thought into it. And that kind of treatment places the entire burden of proof on me to bring back up points to which you didn't respond. It seems a bit unfair, to say the least. At the very least, a statement along the lines of "I already disagreed with the premise of this, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow" would be nice, since it reassures me you're not trying to pull a fast one