pygmalion's dating advice thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

fascination

Site Moderator
Staff member
thank you for that Max..as I am up in the middle of the night pondering luck, and the absence therein...and I think your ponderings have been useful.....exhale...perhaps, with a bit more sleep as they say, spelling aside, in sha allah, (if God wills it) luck will be a construct that is not so foreign anymore
 

danceronice

Well-Known Member
Of course there is... :)

A child's unconditional love
ROFL...children are some of the most self-centered, calculating creatures on Earth. You can never be sure if they're just playing you to get their way or just responding to evolutionary impulses to get the adults to take care of the cutsey helpless offspring, even if it's not theirs. That's not a sure thing, that's a fairy tale. I've worked with hundreds--they're cute up to a certain point, but never make the mistake of thinking they don't have an agenda. Every thing with higher brain function has one and evolution dictates it be self-centered.

I'll give you the sun rising in the east, though. Assuming we use Earth only as the example set.

To having a list of must-haves, can't live withs, and nice to haves--my must-haves for dating/potential marriage is a very short list compared to must-haves if they actually wanted to talk me into having biological offspring! Must-haves for dating: financially independent, emotionally indepedent and mature, conservative (in the dress, behavior, and political senses) and attractive to me. (The "to me" part is important; I'm told my tastes are odd.) Nice to haves/almost always goes with the musts: dark hair/light eyes, older than me, significantly taller, a reader, British accent of certain types never hurts... Deal-breakers: liberals/democrats/lib dems/new labour etc., evangelical protestants, atheists, practicing muslims, hates animals, needs to live in large urban areas as none of those will work long-term (or in the case of evangelicals and atheists, in the short term.)

For actually having kids, tall moves to 'must', and add no history of genetic illnesses and excellent eyesight (if we keep crossing blind on blind in my family the next generation's going to be born without eyes, and yes, in my case at least it's eye shape causing severe myopia so it IS genetic. Plus I'm the tallest female in four generations and I'm not very tall at ALL. Allegedly Dad had some female relative who was 6'1", but it certainly doesn't show up anywhere in the cousins today! My maternal side has all been teeny. I'm 3" taller than my mother and I towered over my grandmother. I'm 5'4". No more short genes.)
 
ROFL...children are some of the most self-centered, calculating creatures on Earth. You can never be sure if they're just playing you to get their way or just responding to evolutionary impulses to get the adults to take care of the cutsey helpless offspring, even if it's not theirs. That's not a sure thing, that's a fairy tale. I've worked with hundreds--they're cute up to a certain point, but never make the mistake of thinking they don't have an agenda. Every thing with higher brain function has one and evolution dictates it be self-centered.

I'll give you the sun rising in the east, though. Assuming we use Earth only as the example set.

To having a list of must-haves, can't live withs, and nice to haves--my must-haves for dating/potential marriage is a very short list compared to must-haves if they actually wanted to talk me into having biological offspring! Must-haves for dating: financially independent, emotionally indepedent and mature, conservative (in the dress, behavior, and political senses) and attractive to me. (The "to me" part is important; I'm told my tastes are odd.) Nice to haves/almost always goes with the musts: dark hair/light eyes, older than me, significantly taller, a reader, British accent of certain types never hurts... Deal-breakers: liberals/democrats/lib dems/new labour etc., evangelical protestants, atheists, practicing muslims, hates animals, needs to live in large urban areas as none of those will work long-term (or in the case of evangelicals and atheists, in the short term.)

For actually having kids, tall moves to 'must', and add no history of genetic illnesses and excellent eyesight (if we keep crossing blind on blind in my family the next generation's going to be born without eyes, and yes, in my case at least it's eye shape causing severe myopia so it IS genetic. Plus I'm the tallest female in four generations and I'm not very tall at ALL. Allegedly Dad had some female relative who was 6'1", but it certainly doesn't show up anywhere in the cousins today! My maternal side has all been teeny. I'm 3" taller than my mother and I towered over my grandmother. I'm 5'4". No more short genes.)
hur hur; it has become a joke between my and my sprog; she does the doe eyed look of the cat in Shrek 3, and we end in hysterics...
 

fascination

Site Moderator
Staff member
wow...yikes....not touching that except to say that most children love their parents unconditionally regardless of thier very ID-like survival mechanisms...as to dating and lists of deal breaking etcetera...I think it is good to have some sense of what will not likely work with you....I think the further you go beyond that says something more about the likelihood of having the flexibility neccessary in order to maintain a relationship in general...in which case, perhaps being single is optimal
 
@madmaximus -

Perspectives are of the Universe. They don't alter the universe - the universe is what it is.

As to thinking success and failure are equally likely, that is not quite so at all. When you start from a place of non-success, then success is far less likely because failure is your default state.

If finding the right relationship is the goal, not being in one is non-success and I'm, for eg, already in that state. The probability of non-success is 1 in this case.

Another certainty is that I'll wake up tomorrow and still not have found the love of my life. There are uninteresting kind of trivial certainties everywhere - they don't invalidate the idea that uncertainties exist in our endeavors, or that failure is possible despite everything.

Pragmatism is never intended to be pessimism. Intuition for the nuanced distinction may be uncommon though - so perhaps it's best for most to stick to unbridled optimism.
 
I'm afraid attempting to prove things by analogy to quantum physics is one of my pet peeves.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: It is not possible to measure the value of two complementary properties of a body to arbitrary precision. Two examples of such pairs are position and momentum, and time and energy. In other words, if you know exactly how fast a particle is moving, you can't know where it is.

In quantum mechanics, there is no certainty, there are only probabilities and observations.
 
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: It is not possible to measure the value of two complementary properties of a body to arbitrary precision. Two examples of such pairs are position and momentum, and time and energy. In other words, if you know exactly how fast a particle is moving, you can't know where it is.
If you know yourself and what you want, you can't know quite precisely where he/she is and how to find him/her.

If you knew who and where he/she is quite precisely, you are surely missing some aspect of self-awareness and deluding yourself into thinking you know what you want.
 

madmaximus

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid attempting to prove things by analogy to quantum physics is one of my pet peeves.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: It is not possible to measure the value of two complementary properties of a body to arbitrary precision. Two examples of such pairs are position and momentum, and time and energy. In other words, if you know exactly how fast a particle is moving, you can't know where it is.

In quantum mechanics, there is no certainty, there are only probabilities and observations.
In my life, I'm surrounded by scientists, theoretical physicists, biologists, mathematicians, and the sort.

I love jabbing analogy at their precious dogma not to prove or disprove anything, but because it's their pet peeve---and in truth pushes them to think of possibilities.

Now that I know it's a pet peeve of yours ... :friend:


:)





m
 

madmaximus

Well-Known Member
...
Perspectives are of the Universe. They don't alter the universe - the universe is what it is.
...
[chuckle]

And THAT'S my point. What if it DOES alter the universe?

When we walk from point A to point B we move through the universe.

OR DO WE?

What if I am actually a fixed point in time and space, and it is the universe that moves from point A to point B?






m
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dance Ads