Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="machinicoccultist" data-source="post: 34224" data-attributes="member: 175">Half of blackpill is wrong anyways like fucking &#039;sub 8 theory&#039;, who the fuck came up with that?? Jfl&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite78" alt=":pepelul:" title="PepeLUL&nbsp; &nbsp; :pepelul:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":pepelul:" /> I have seen nothing as retarded and autistic as that; don&#039;t blame them cause feels.Anyways, they are binary black-and-white determinists who don&#039;t understand probability and statistics. Dating is (ironically) a number&#039;s game but how much can you expose yourself and how much emotional damage can you take?Blackpill is the autist&#039;s unreliable conception of dating dynaimcs, bluepill is the virtue signalling moralfag&#039;s unreliable conception of dating dynamics, while academic dating psych is an impartial researcher&#039;s conception and is usually most impartial. So take some time to understand some basic high school level statistics, doesn&#039;t have to be much really, and think about what does that statistic means in whoever&#039;s paper.Can&#039;t remember but some where for some speed dating study showed looks correlate about r=-.31 or r=.39 (male and female selection of the other) with relationship passion (they were asked about it following-up the speed dating event), meaning 15% or 20% for males selecting females and females selecting males respectively. Being personable is at like 8% of variation but i can&#039;t remember Personally I think of dating dynamics from a biopsychosocial perspective. I know it&#039;s used for mental illness psychology stuff but the perspective works perfectly, seemingly, with dating dynamics. Should be self-explanatory enough</blockquote>

[QUOTE="machinicoccultist, post: 34224, member: 175"] Half of blackpill is wrong anyways like fucking 'sub 8 theory', who the fuck came up with that?? Jfl :pepelul: I have seen nothing as retarded and autistic as that; don't blame them cause feels. Anyways, they are binary black-and-white determinists who don't understand probability and statistics. Dating is (ironically) a number's game but how much can you expose yourself and how much emotional damage can you take? Blackpill is the [B]autist's[/B] unreliable conception of dating dynaimcs, bluepill is the [B]virtue signalling moralfag's [/B]unreliable conception of dating dynamics, while academic dating psych is an [B]impartial researcher's[/B] conception and is usually most impartial. So take some time to understand some basic high school level statistics, doesn't have to be much really, and think about what does that statistic means in whoever's paper. Can't remember but some where for some speed dating study showed looks correlate about r=-.31 or r=.39 (male and female selection of the other) with relationship passion (they were asked about it following-up the speed dating event), meaning 15% or 20% for males selecting females and females selecting males respectively. Being personable is at like 8% of variation but i can't remember Personally I think of dating dynamics from a biopsychosocial perspective. I know it's used for mental illness psychology stuff but the perspective works perfectly, seemingly, with dating dynamics. Should be self-explanatory enough [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread