October 18th, 2004


Previous Entry Next Entry
05:58 pm - on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)...

(57 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:06 am (Link)
In fact, they aren’t accurate. That's the other problem with your argument. Lets say that you are only into geeky chicks. This may not be the smartest plan for seeking out relationships (and, you are probably actually more complex than that), but lets accept it as an postulate. For my definition of geek, I'm randomly picking the traits, "programs or services computers", "plays videogames" "plays roleplaying games" "would call herself as a geek when asked." Looking quickly at my friends list, there are about 67 women. Just guessing from what I know of each of them, I'd say 51 of them would probably identify themselves as geeks if you asked them. I'd say 34 of them make their living using computers. I'd say 31 of them like playing video games. I'd say 23 of them like RPGs. And 57 of them at least put some attention into following some fashion trend or another. For my tabulation I just used my best guesses, and if I wasn't sure, I erred on the side of no. For the fashion question, I used the basis of "I've personally seen this person work to create a look other than "jeans and a t-shirt, on at least a semi-normal, non-work requirement basis" or "I know for a fact that this person is at least trying to look cute/sexy/interesting/whatever, at least in their own view with the way they dress." Even then, I figure of the 10 I didn't count as caring, most of them probably do, I just wasn't sure. Nine women fell into all categories.

So by your logic, you’re assuming that 57 of the 67 women are uninteresting because they must not be geeks, but in reality, with 50 of them you'd be wrong. My point here is that you’re assigning a stereotype based on your own personal learning experience as opposed to cultural norms, and personal learning, though a standard for shaping the human experience, is innately flawed due to lack of sampling size. I could just as easily say "All men named Barry are assholes because everyone I ever met with that name was." but its not really a useful stereotype. Its too based on my flawed perception. I might also believe that "college graduates are generally more intelligent than high school dropouts." Probably not true for every case, but probably a safer assumption to make. And society will likely back me up due to a naturally larger sampling size. Your opinion is closer to the Barry statement than it is to the graduates statement.

Its like music. You’re welcome to like only experiemental techno from India. You’re welcome to think all other music is crap. You may come to that conclusion through any means. But not understanding that the majority of the rest of us like rock, hiphop or pop would just be ignorant. Saying why the specific sounds of Indian techno appeal to you is one thing. (your closet full of identical t-shirts) Explaining how all rock, hiphop and pop is vapid or devoid of real meaning because it lacks a sitar would be another (prom queen =useless and uninteresting). It doesn't show musical intelligence, or even validate tastes, it only shows a lack of understanding about diversity in music and culture (or a lack of understanding about women, and in particular prom queens)
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 03:44 pm (Link)
I propose a massive cultural/demographic/consumer/personality database that will tell me exactly how to identify people I want to talk to or avoid based on appearance. It can perform big factor analyses. Until such a thing happens, the advice from your cognitive structures is no better than mine, and the analysis of your friends list is no better than my analysis of my life.

And your music analogy doesn't exactly apply because I'm not saying that no one can like prom queens, I'm just saying that I don't. You can listen to all the rock you want, and I'll stick to my indian techno. To me, the before picture is sexier.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:37 pm (Link)
no my sampling is not scientific. Not by any means. Its not garunteed to be any better than your analysis of your own life. But see, I'm not claiming that I can accurately predict people. My entire premise is that you can't. You're the one claiming that you can. And you're right, my way was flawed. Again, just like yours. Really though, I think I can do a pretty good job of making those judgements. I spend a lot of time working on that sort of thing. I went to school for that sort of thing. I make assumptions on information based on first impressions all the time. And even I am wrong sometimes. Again, that's the point.

I suppose if you really want, I could post a survey, but likely you'll still get what you'd consider flawed results. My sampling group is simply wrong. It is artificially skewed to match my views because basically, that's how people became friends of mine in the first place.

That said, again, you are making the mistake by assuming there is some basic formula that you can use to make judgements of people. You can't. Even with all the information in the world, you'd still be falliable. No one is perfect. Not even me (I'm just damn close). Only Jay-Z never makes mistakes.

And my analogy is perfect.You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to make you like the outfits that I chose. I am not. I am not trying to make you like the rock music. I am trying to get you to acknowledge that your love of the indian techno has no bearing whatsoever on the ability or talen of the rock musician. Your assumptions of the black people in your neighborhood has no bearing on their education. Your preference to the jeans and t-shirt has no bearing on the personality of the girl wearing the prom dress.

If you'd simply said "I like women who wear jeans, I think its sexy" I would have said fine. But you insist on trying to link that to some aspect of personality or intelligence or general personality, and simply stated, it just doesn't exist. Its a fallacy that geeks use to pretend that they are better than other people. If you say "Girls in T-shirts make me horny" or "green dresses are ugly" that's all well and good but instead you try to turn it into something deeper or metaphysical so that they don't feel like they're shallow. Its not just geeks that do this. Everyone does this. In cultural studies, its called demonizing the Other. The Other can be anything. Black people are strong and dumb. Jews are smart and greedy. Gays are promiscuous and unreligious. Skinny white boys with glasses are smart and unatheletic. But they aren't always true. These aren't innate truths. In fact, much of the truth of these ideas comes through a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the demonization. I can give you tons of books and articles on the subject. Sometimes a skinny white boy with glasses is just malnourished and myopic.

You have preferences. That's fine. But really, if you believe that they mean something deeper than just be preferences you're either hurting yourself or just ignorant. Possibly both. I mean that in the best possible way.
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 06:33 pm (Link)
Some point-by-points:

* Given all information, perfect decisions can be made. Attaining all information is impossible (or would take forever, as I said earlier and you misinterpreted), so all decisions that we make are imperfect. You write as though I said somewhere that I make perfect decisions with little information. I never claimed that. I said that I make as-good-as-I-can decisions with available information.

* I did originally just say "I like the before picture better." You did not just say "fine." You asked for a reason. NTB.

* Okay, I acknowledge that my preference for techno does not affect the talent of a rock musician. That is obvious. I don't even understand what you're arguing there.

* That's the second time you brought up some educational background you have. That will not affect the weight I give your argument. I'm getting a doctorate in psychology, among other things, and I'm proposing a presentation to the APA on the mechanics of culture in relationships. Most of what I've done for a long time has involved researching cognitive biases and culture. Due to time and motivation, I didn't explain my preference as completely as possible from psychodynamic, evolutionary, social, cognitive, developmental, and personality perspectives. Excuse me.

You seem to separate preferences from any explanation. I didn't "turn [my] preferences into something deeper and metaphysical." I briefly touched upon the probable reason that I have the preference that I do, as requested. Then you told me that my reason was wrong, which is absurd because you don't know me.

* Your "Demonizing the Other" reference seems a little out of place. Your examples are more the results of the media or other external indoctrination. My feelings are based on my personal experiences and are, as you have pointed out in other posts, often contrary to popular concensus. Even adding in another statement you made on the possibility of forming schemas in intentional opposition to the mainstream, that still completely provides a valid reason for the formation of a preference. You talk of self-fullfilling prophesy (I don't like prom queens, therefor when I talk to them I dislike whatever they present) which is fine! That's a reasonable explanation! You can't tell me that that makes me ignorant because that's how EVERYONE works. You admit that you make judgement on first impressions and are sometimes wrong, and I already admitted that, too. I don't understand what you think I said that causes you to write so much stuff that half the time agrees with me and half the time seems hypocritical.

This thread belongs on DPB.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com