The science of sex appeal

[Mistic]

http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70128594&trkid=1211024

The best way to determine truth is through the scientific method. Maybe this will end all the stupid little debates that pop up about all the elements of attraction

 

[JLW]

The best way to determine truth is through the scientific method.

This is not really true.The "scientific method" as you put it, does not encompass all knowledge.

 

[Mistic]

This is not really true.The "scientific method" as you put it, does not encompass all knowledge.

Oh, Ok, maybe I should consult a Quija Board, base my decisions on Astrology, or ask Angels for insights into attraction. This isn't a philosophical debate, it's much more simple. Run tests on a large number of men and women, and look at the results. If it wasn't for science you wouldn't be able to refute scientific methods on a computer genius.

 

[synergy1]

http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70128594&trkid=1211024

The best way to determine truth is through the scientific method. Maybe this will end all the stupid little debates that pop up about all the elements of attraction

So were newtons laws the absolute truth? no. Reductionists determined that quantum physics is more suited to describe our universe. Science isn't the absolute truth, its a method to describe what we see around us. There is always a degree of uncertainty. Take for example the Heisenberg uncertainty principal that states that an observer created universe in and of itself skews results ( more precisely one can not determine and objects location and momentum simultaneously, i digress). The idea is that there is always a degree of error even when data supports an hypothesis, and anyone worth a damn in the community knows this.

edit: echoing JLW's post

 

[JLW]

Synergy1 explained what I meant very well.

Science is merely a tool we use to obtain knowledge. But it certainly is not the only way.

There are certain things that science is unable to really comment on or judge, such as logical/mathematical truths, ethical beliefs/obligations, judgements of aesthetics/beauty (art), metaphysical truths, etc.

Most importantly, science itself cannot be justified by science. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions.

Sorry, play again.

 

[synergy1]

if we could compare physics with biology, our level of technology would be significantly advanced. So for now, the answer has to be no.

Attraction, like science, boils down to a few simple assumptions. Beyond the basics, you probably won't find a real consensus as evidenced by many threads on this forum. Lets take our not-so-favorite debate about looks and game. If I were to tell you that my looks got me a chick, but it ended up I underestimated how smooth I was, than even a favorable result would mean nothing in regards to the hypothesis. Likewise a dude who thinks they have good game, but got lucky w/ one chick might conclude that his talking ability is second to none. The conclusion is that our own observations can fool us, thus even looking at it scientifically by asking individuals questions about attraction will likely lead one astray.

real2, ever see that picture of chimps sword fighting in suits? its pro. google it

 

[Mistic]

Over-analyzation coupled with the fact that you guys regularly frequent this forum :crazy: Hmmm, I can deduce some scientific observations already.

How bout this. Watch the video, and then judge for yourself.

Here's a tip. If 6 out of 10 women agree, that's all you need to know. Who cares about variables and absolute truths.

If you are successful financially, drive a nice car, have a nice body, have a mostly symmetrically face with close proportions of the golden mean, smell right, have a deeper voice plus confidence and wit etc. you are going to be successful with women.

ps. Why do I get the feeling anyone who would argue these facts is probably not getting laid, and is just annoyed about it and looking for debate rather than an insight? Hmm

 

[Just a Shot Away]

If you are successful financially, drive a nice car, have a nice body, have a mostly symmetrically face with close proportions of the golden mean, smell right, have a deeper voice plus confidence and wit etc. you are going to be successful with women.

This is a classic example of one of those word problems with all that unnecessary information in there to confuse people. Confidence, wit, and money are the important things that you mentioned.

ps. Why do I get the feeling anyone who would argue these facts is probably not getting laid, and is just annoyed about it and looking for debate rather than an insight? Hmm

Dude. You posted a topic in order to incite discussion about "Do looks matter? If so, how much?" Please don't try to act like you're not looking for debate. You've been here long enough to know that there's two clear sides to this issue, and neither side will give way to the other. I mean s.hit, didn't the fact that there's an 85 page thread about this subject in the Archives clue you in that this may be an incendiary topic?

 

[JLW]

ps. Why do I get the feeling anyone who would argue these facts is probably not getting laid, and is just annoyed about it and looking for debate rather than an insight? Hmm

Hey Mistic,

I would disagree with the not getting laid part. These discussions are rather important. They probably aren't something to discuss on a first date, but critical thinking about topics like this is pretty important to developing on a deeper level as well being able to hold/defend certain beliefs. This will indirectly help you with the ladies because you'll be intelligent, informed, and confident about where you stand regarding how the world works. Of course, the main priority is to improve yourself, not necessarily attract girls.

The girls that don't care at all about debate (whether it is political, philosophical, etc.) are shallow airheads. They're not really the types of girls you want to have a relationship with. Maybe a quick lay would be worthwhile though.

Once again though, these aren't really the discussions you should have on the first few dates....maybe much, MUCH later in the relationship.

Sorry about that. Didn't mean to be a total jerk about it. I guess I was just saying that we should be careful about the "hard, scientific facts".

I'll watch the video at some point though.

 

[Zarky]

The best way to determine truth is through the scientific method.

This is a 100% accurate statement, but people will still disagree (and have, as you've seen) with it. Which makes it more and more apparent to me that getting to true knowledge by discussions with random people on the 'net is an exercise in futility.

You could come out, say "2+2=4, now let's discuss the ramifications of that," and half the people would argue that 2+2 doesn't =4. My suggestion is, stick to the opinions of the experts, listen to PU theory and only use these boards for kicks. Get out and put your sh*t into practice.

 

[Mistic]

Look guys, I posted this because a friend sent it to me, I watched it, and agree that the information given is based on real trials and field tests, not opinions. Some of the info we already know, and there are some other interesting things I didn't exactly know, like how a womans voice and facial appearance change slightly during ovulation. We all know there is a difference, but these guys tested it, and tested every other aspect of sexual attraction, again, with the scientific method which is far superior to private hunches and mumbo jumbo speculations.

I am not looking for a debate. I agree with the video, and I get women whenever I want because I have many of the traits outlined in this video. I dont really care what anyone else thinks about it.

If anyone wants to watch the video, and have a discussion about it, that would be an intelligent informed discussion.

 

[Zarky]

If anyone wants to watch the video, and have a discussion about it, that would be an intelligent informed discussion.

I think you're casting pearls before swine. However, I don't have netflix so I can't watch it

 

[JLW]

This is a 100% accurate statement, but people will still disagree (and have, as you've seen) with it.

Okay, so can you prove scientifically that this statement is true? That was a rhetorical question, because you can't. There's no way to test that science is the best way to obtain knowledge through the scientific method. Science is merely a means by which we make assessments of the physical world....

Which makes it more and more apparent to me that getting to true knowledge by discussions with random people on the 'net is an exercise in futility.

I would mostly agree with you here, however.

You could come out, say "2+2=4, now let's discuss the ramifications of that," and half the people would argue that 2+2 doesn't =4.

I'm not sure if you were suggesting this, but figuring out if 2+2=4 employs absolutely NO scientific method. Figuring out if 2+2=4 is a mathematical truth. Mathematical truths presuppose science. You need logic/math before you can start doing the scientific method.

My suggestion is, stick to the opinions of the experts, listen to PU theory and only use these boards for kicks. Get out and put your sh*t into practice.

I use these boards exclusively for kicks. I agree that simply practicing is far more useful than these boards. I will sometimes get advice on these boards when I experience a moment of craziness (it's hard to look at your own situations objectively so going on here gives you a good dose of reality if you're struggling with something).

 

[Mistic]

Science is merely a means by which we make assessments of the physical world....

We are talking about the physical world genius. When you shoot loads of sperm all over face and in her nostrils, is that a spiritual thing? Is pvssy juice etherical slime or can you actually watch it squirt across the room upon a proper female ejaculation?

 

[JLW]

I typically see such statements when someone is arguing that evolution is just a "theory".

An intuitive individual will know what I'm getting at...

Just saying. :rock:

You have completely missed the point.

Evolution can be proven through observation and testing (read: science).

The statement "The best way to determine truth is through the scientific method." can not be proven through the scientific method.

This viewpoint is literally self-refuting.

 

[JLW]

We are talking about the physical world genius. When you shoot loads of sperm all over face and in her nostrils, is that a spiritual thing? Is pvssy juice etherical slime or can you actually watch it squirt across the room upon a proper female ejaculation?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here.

But I'll just repeat what I said earlier:

"There are certain things that science is unable to really comment on or judge, such as logical/mathematical truths, ethical beliefs/obligations, judgements of aesthetics/beauty (art) [and physical beauty of women/men], metaphysical truths, etc."

 

[Zarky]

Sorry OP, your thread has been hijacked by a troll and is now worthless. So goes the internet.

 

[Mistic]

Btw, are there any mirrors to that video?

Perhaps youtube? Or a file name?

You guys should be able to find it on a torrent site. "The Science of Sex Appeal."

 

[Uberguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoKA-a5vEEc&feature=related

It's great that there's scientific method to back up these claims, but it's not like they're saying anything new or shocking here. There's nothing mentioned in these videos that isn't already in the DJ Bible.