This is something I've thought about throughout my life ever since I watched the movie, 'When Harry Met Sally.' It was a question that has resonated in my life and had contemplated many times. I've also debated this with my wife as well as many friends of mine. I figure I'll blog about something a little more lighthearted and fun.
So basically my opinion on the matter is men and women cannot really be friends. We can make up reasons on why we can but these are just lies we tell ourselves as men. Women on the other hand truly do believe that men and women can be friends. It's funny how uniformly this opinion is. Almost all women think men and women can be friends and some men think the same while other men (who I think are honest) admit they really can't be friends. To paraphrase Chris Rock, men become friends with women by accident.
The idea is men will want to have sex with women they find attractive at some level. We can safely assume any categorically "hot" women (like Victoria Secret models) will have many male "friends" in their minds. The question to examine is if a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive. Billy Crystal's answer to that is that men will still want to have sex with them too. However, my assertion is if a man cannot find a woman attractive at any level (personality or otherwise) they would not find themselves being friends with that person. Whatever that woman could provide in terms of value, the man can get the same from another man.
So my assertion is if a man is "friends" with a woman, he has to find them attractive at some level for whatever reason. Now a man who is friends with another man also finds value in the friendship but because they are the same gender and are both heterosexual, find value in pure character alone. When the genders are different where sexual attraction becomes possible, the value is then tainted. For example, if a man enjoys good conversation with another male friend, he can appreciate the friendship at face value. Now consider a heterosexual man enjoying a good conversation with a female friend. Maybe the conversation was very good at face value or maybe the conversation was partially enhanced because he's attracted to her at some level, conscious or not. It becomes a possibility he cannot ignore.
One of the other reasons why women can't seem to understand why men and women can't be friends is men and women are built completely different in terms of attraction. Men can be instantly attracted to a woman. Women are built differently on choosing a mate. Looks alone can't do it. They are hard wired to pick mates who can assist them in raising a child. This means they must look beneath the surface and find qualities that will make them want to mate with them. Things like having a sense of humor, confidence, ambition and of course good looks.
Now, if we frame the question differently to women so that they find themselves in the same position as a man would be in (e.g. at first sight) like the following question:
"Suppose you met a man who could make you laugh, feel comfortable, was good looking and had a really good job and would make a good husband, would you be okay being friends with him?"
I'm sure they'd have a hard time just being friends with such a person.
If that's true, then it should send a clear message to any guy who's in the "friend-zone" to move on. You don't have the qualities she's looking for.
The main problem is timing. Both men and women can feel physical attraction immediately. However, women need more time to weed out those they cannot sleep with. For men, it's almost instantaneous. And there lies the problem. While a man is waiting to figure out a way to sleep with a woman, the woman is putting the man through her tests. As time keeps passing, a man either becomes more attractive or less attractive. Of course, if you're not dating the girl by then, you already know which camp you belong to.
The best way to get a girl to decide to date you or not is to refuse to be friends with her and force her to give you a chance or free you up to pursue other interests.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Perception fail!
I recently started a new job about 6 weeks ago. I'm definitely much happier being in the role that I'm in as well as being completely out of the government sector. One of the more interesting perks was that one of my co-workers is into philosophy - or so he said.
Last week we went into it for about 3 hours one afternoon. I know...it was a rather waste of company time but apparently the other co-workers knew I was getting the indoctrination by this guy. He has a history of giving unsolicited philosophy classes to his coworkers. The three-hour "debate" involved me, this guy and another person who had has gone through with this guy's spiel. He was rather impressed on my challenges.
One of the main challenges with people who like to dabble into philosophy is their inability to stay focused on one argument. They go on tangents indefinitely. One of the things this person claimed that the future is completely predictable. So I asked him how that is. Ultimately his argument hinged on the fact that he was a determinist. He didn't quite explain how being a determinist makes the future completely predictable. I explained, for example, that weather systems are deterministic systems and at the same time unpredictable. This is due to the fact that there are always unknown agents at play which create unpredictability. This is basic chaos theory. It was difficult to understand how someone who claims they spend a lot of time studying philosophy take a very simplistic view on determinism. I did concede that only with perfect knowledge can one argue that determinism leads to predictability.
The argument then segued to the topic of God since we were discussing the topic of perfect knowledge. I said that I didn't believe in a God. Of course we then, almost immediately, debated on the truth value of the existence of God. I then said there is no truth value to the existence of God. In other words, we cannot apply a value of either True nor False. He then said he didn't understand the concept of having no truth value. I said it was equivalent to a NULL value - its value cannot be determined. He started arguing that everything is either true or false. I then proceeded to explain to him that if I had a dream about rabbits, there was no way for him to know either way if the dream happened or didn't happen. But he kept insisting that I would know and therefore I would know the value. But he had completely missed the point about falsifiability. Something that is true cannot be true exclusively for one person.
This again, segued into another topic of objectivity and subjectivity. We debated on what the color green was. I stated that green is simply a label to a specific frequency of light wave. Then he said that another person could have a different frequency that is slightly different to which they label green. I said that is irrelevant because the labels are different. If they called my 'green' color assignment 'blue-green' for themselves, it's nothing different than some French person saying 'vert.' He then tried to explain that differences in cones and rods is the reason why people have different color experiences.
The mention of rods and cones is probably the most frustrating part of the debate. The reason being that he cheated very badly in his argument. If we are trying to establish a framework on how to objectively view reality, you cannot use results of a framework you are trying to refute. Specifically, one cannot argue on what "green" is while at the same time accept that "cones and rods" are already objectively established. If your argument is "We can't objectively put labels on things" then you have given up the right to use "things with labels" to support your argument.
It's unfortunate this guy, who is in his mid-sixties, have spent a lot of time in this area and cannot establish a coherent argument. The depth of his knowledge was impressive as he went on tangents about the universe, basic math and geometry. However, trying to tie it all up filled with contradictions that he's unable to see was disheartening.
Last week we went into it for about 3 hours one afternoon. I know...it was a rather waste of company time but apparently the other co-workers knew I was getting the indoctrination by this guy. He has a history of giving unsolicited philosophy classes to his coworkers. The three-hour "debate" involved me, this guy and another person who had has gone through with this guy's spiel. He was rather impressed on my challenges.
One of the main challenges with people who like to dabble into philosophy is their inability to stay focused on one argument. They go on tangents indefinitely. One of the things this person claimed that the future is completely predictable. So I asked him how that is. Ultimately his argument hinged on the fact that he was a determinist. He didn't quite explain how being a determinist makes the future completely predictable. I explained, for example, that weather systems are deterministic systems and at the same time unpredictable. This is due to the fact that there are always unknown agents at play which create unpredictability. This is basic chaos theory. It was difficult to understand how someone who claims they spend a lot of time studying philosophy take a very simplistic view on determinism. I did concede that only with perfect knowledge can one argue that determinism leads to predictability.
The argument then segued to the topic of God since we were discussing the topic of perfect knowledge. I said that I didn't believe in a God. Of course we then, almost immediately, debated on the truth value of the existence of God. I then said there is no truth value to the existence of God. In other words, we cannot apply a value of either True nor False. He then said he didn't understand the concept of having no truth value. I said it was equivalent to a NULL value - its value cannot be determined. He started arguing that everything is either true or false. I then proceeded to explain to him that if I had a dream about rabbits, there was no way for him to know either way if the dream happened or didn't happen. But he kept insisting that I would know and therefore I would know the value. But he had completely missed the point about falsifiability. Something that is true cannot be true exclusively for one person.
This again, segued into another topic of objectivity and subjectivity. We debated on what the color green was. I stated that green is simply a label to a specific frequency of light wave. Then he said that another person could have a different frequency that is slightly different to which they label green. I said that is irrelevant because the labels are different. If they called my 'green' color assignment 'blue-green' for themselves, it's nothing different than some French person saying 'vert.' He then tried to explain that differences in cones and rods is the reason why people have different color experiences.
The mention of rods and cones is probably the most frustrating part of the debate. The reason being that he cheated very badly in his argument. If we are trying to establish a framework on how to objectively view reality, you cannot use results of a framework you are trying to refute. Specifically, one cannot argue on what "green" is while at the same time accept that "cones and rods" are already objectively established. If your argument is "We can't objectively put labels on things" then you have given up the right to use "things with labels" to support your argument.
It's unfortunate this guy, who is in his mid-sixties, have spent a lot of time in this area and cannot establish a coherent argument. The depth of his knowledge was impressive as he went on tangents about the universe, basic math and geometry. However, trying to tie it all up filled with contradictions that he's unable to see was disheartening.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The government shutdown
I noticed something this morning on facebook.
A lot of postings regarding the impending government shutdown. What was particularly interesting was what was being posted and how to spot the die-hard statists. These people are the ones who expressed their frustration on the "failure" of Congress. Mark my words here: Those who are frustrated with the government's inability to compromise and "get things done" today are the ones who will be the first to abandon the democratic model in favor of a "more centralized" form of government where there's less gridlock. In other words, a more totalitarian form of government. This is exactly where the Hitlers, Mussolinis and the Maos come from. They just don't fall out of the sky.
When a representative style of government begins to fail, from its own inherent flaws, people will want a more "effective" form of government. Instead of thinking perhaps their assumptions might have been wrong to begin with, they simply double-down on the flawed system. This is the drug-addict refusing to believe the source of their troubles is the drug itself but rather not having enough of the drug.
Statism is the new religion. It is dogma and its failures could only be explained by the lack of total adoption by others. The interesting thing though is if it's success is solely based on 100% adoption rate, simply kicking out those who oppose this ideology would solve their problem. All they have to do is say, "Okay, all you anarchists out there, we don't need your tax money and we'll show you how great this society can be without you." Once the precedent has been established, everyone would be heading out the exit doors. Thus the contradiction that taxation isn't theft is revealed; the social contract exposed for what it is - a myth. Maybe not everyone would head for the exit doors. Perhaps there will be those who wish to stay and try this social experiment. However, this would then simply become an example of a stateless society because the remaining participants in this experiment wouldn't be coerced to pay for "government services" since they all willingly stay. Taxation, in this system, is really donation-based funding.
Another angle for attacking the concept that taxation isn't theft is a moral argument. If taxation isn't theft then it should follow that anyone who pays taxes is good person. If the tax money goes to help the poor, feed hungry children, put out fires, provide protection services for others AND taxation is not theft and simply a donation, or better yet, a social contract where by not fleeing the tax system shows your devotion to enter into this contract, you are doing great humanitarian services for others.
Ahhh but no statist would look at that as morally good since it's indirect through a tax system. These people aren't happy to just stop there. Suddenly, the goal post has moved because if you pay taxes, you are just doing the bare minimum and it can't be considered good if you just do the bare minimum. Suddenly the voluntary aspect of the social contract is completely ignored.
Anyway, take down names on facebook. In about 5-10 years these will be the same ones who will support the idea of a dictatorship.
A lot of postings regarding the impending government shutdown. What was particularly interesting was what was being posted and how to spot the die-hard statists. These people are the ones who expressed their frustration on the "failure" of Congress. Mark my words here: Those who are frustrated with the government's inability to compromise and "get things done" today are the ones who will be the first to abandon the democratic model in favor of a "more centralized" form of government where there's less gridlock. In other words, a more totalitarian form of government. This is exactly where the Hitlers, Mussolinis and the Maos come from. They just don't fall out of the sky.
When a representative style of government begins to fail, from its own inherent flaws, people will want a more "effective" form of government. Instead of thinking perhaps their assumptions might have been wrong to begin with, they simply double-down on the flawed system. This is the drug-addict refusing to believe the source of their troubles is the drug itself but rather not having enough of the drug.
Statism is the new religion. It is dogma and its failures could only be explained by the lack of total adoption by others. The interesting thing though is if it's success is solely based on 100% adoption rate, simply kicking out those who oppose this ideology would solve their problem. All they have to do is say, "Okay, all you anarchists out there, we don't need your tax money and we'll show you how great this society can be without you." Once the precedent has been established, everyone would be heading out the exit doors. Thus the contradiction that taxation isn't theft is revealed; the social contract exposed for what it is - a myth. Maybe not everyone would head for the exit doors. Perhaps there will be those who wish to stay and try this social experiment. However, this would then simply become an example of a stateless society because the remaining participants in this experiment wouldn't be coerced to pay for "government services" since they all willingly stay. Taxation, in this system, is really donation-based funding.
Another angle for attacking the concept that taxation isn't theft is a moral argument. If taxation isn't theft then it should follow that anyone who pays taxes is good person. If the tax money goes to help the poor, feed hungry children, put out fires, provide protection services for others AND taxation is not theft and simply a donation, or better yet, a social contract where by not fleeing the tax system shows your devotion to enter into this contract, you are doing great humanitarian services for others.
Ahhh but no statist would look at that as morally good since it's indirect through a tax system. These people aren't happy to just stop there. Suddenly, the goal post has moved because if you pay taxes, you are just doing the bare minimum and it can't be considered good if you just do the bare minimum. Suddenly the voluntary aspect of the social contract is completely ignored.
Anyway, take down names on facebook. In about 5-10 years these will be the same ones who will support the idea of a dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)