Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pony Girl

Regulars
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Pony Girl

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. Rooting for a team because they're local implies some kind of collectivism. I've heard many a "fan" say that they root for the local team even though the local team consistently loses. They believe that loyalty to a losing team holds a value. They believe that they have a duty to root for a team from their locale. This is incorrect. The error comes from determinism, where people mistakenly believe that they are "determined" to be a certain way because of their physical location. This is false; we have free will. I've also heard many people say, "we won!" when the person speaking has absolutely nothing to do with the winning. The athlete won. The coach could say they won in that they coached a winning team. The owner of the team could say they won because they own the team. But the fat guy on the couch watching TV with a beer in his hand didn't do anything to make the team win. In this case, they are taking credit for another person's achievements. It would be correct to say, "my favorite team won," but not to say, "we won." Enjoying watching achievement is rational. I myself enjoy the Olympics. I particularly enjoy watching the equestrian sports, since I ride dressage. I watch other riders in order to learn from those who perform best in my sport. My husband plays tennis, and enjoys watching the tennis matches. In those sports, we are enjoying seeing the best athletes in the world achieving their goals and learning from watching them. Rooting for someone because you personally know them and care for them is also rational. You want those for whom you care to achieve their goals. Playing sports vicariously through others and pretending that their achievement is your acheivement is not rational. Rooting for someone because you appreciate their achievement or because you personally know them is rational.
  2. You weren't booted. You were part of a net split, meaning that the server that connected you to IRC was temporarily offline. It will appear that everyone in the channel left. Next time, just wait it out. Another thing that can happen is you could get disconnected, which is again an issue of the server to which you are connected. Just reconnect when that happens. You may need to change your nick, as sometimes your old nick will stay out there for a while. If you were to get kicked and banned from a channel, you would receive a message saying "you have been kicked by (nick of whoever kicked you)," generally followed by the reason you were kicked and/or banned. You may be kicked by the channel bot for saying too much too quickly and overwhelming the channel. In that case, the reason will be "flood." You shouldn't have a problem rejoining the channel if being kicked for that reason.
  3. Ramare, the point we were trying to make is that it's not that important whether a man has a certain hair color or whether his ears stick out or something. Men don't have to look a certain way. Men are not eliminated from the dating pool because they have blonde, curly hair (for example). They should take care of themselves physically, and that will show. (slim, good posture, etc) They should be focused, and that will show, you are right. Look in his eyes. If you see a void, stay away. But if his ears stick out or his nose is a bit big, it's not terribly important. Unless he is horribly disfigured, looks aren't that important. Would you pick a guy because he's "eye candy?" No, he has to know how to treat you. You have to be able to respect him, look up to him. The heroic quality is the primary thing that women want in a man. We want a man who is confident. This is not the same for a woman. Women should be pretty and feminine. We are the value... a treasure for the man. That's why women wear skirts, high heels, bustiers and makeup. She needs to have a face that is proportionate, with delicate features. She needs to have a shapely body. Looks are much more important to men looking for a woman.
  4. You don't seriously want some pathetic puppy dog of a man to follow you around begging you to go out with him, do you? Nor do you want a bunch of guys asking you out and you have to turn them down all the time. You want ONLY they guy that you INVITE to ask you out. For example, Dominique broke the marble in her fireplace to let Roark know she wanted him. Miss Rand tripped Frank O'Connor to let him know she was interested. The woman needs to do the inviting. The man needs to respond, if he is also interested. If you walk down the street and some guy whistles, does that make you want to respond? No. Why not? You don't want some street thug. Now imagine the consultant who comes to fix your computer. He always knows the right buttons to push. You want him to ask you out, so you give him an invitation... perhaps you ask him lots of questions, put on a skirt, bat your eyelashes a bit. You INVITE HIM... let him know you're interested. THEN he can ask you out.
  5. We're not here to discuss how a hedonist views sex. The topic of this thread is "Dating - Any Objective Guidelines?" This forum is for the discussion of Objectivism, not hedonism.
  6. I agree that hero worship is part of a woman's nature, and that it is easier for her to understand. But seriously, how many people have healthy, coherent emotions or understand where emotions come from? Even Objectivists are often missing this, or we wouldn't have so much discussion about it. To use the example from your web page. I think I know the young man to whom you refer. He's a wonderful person. He's introspective, honest, and intelligent. He has a very good understanding of Objectivism - one of the most integrated people I've met. I was very excited to meet his fiancee. When I met her I asked her what she loved about him, and I expected her to say something about his morality and intelligence. Instead she giggled and said "I don't know." I was horrified. I hoped that she was just saying that because she thought it too intimate a question. I asked her about how she met him. She said she had heard about him and wasn't interested, but when she saw him, she immediately introduced herself. So she married him because he was "cute"? She also married him right after finishing college and getting her first job. At a time when she was growing and changing a lot personally, she had the added stress of a lifestyle change in her personal life (marriage). With all this change, she was overwhelmed. No wonder she suddenly found herself having strong emotions of confusion and resentment. She said she had no idea why she felt that way, and I believe her. Both of them were understandably traumatized by the whole ordeal. I could come up with many other examples of course, but the fact of the matter is I don't think women by their nature understand femininity. I think most people in general don't understand their emotions and they don't believe that their emotions can be understood. Assuming that women inherently understand themselves can lead to devastating disappointment for both parties.
  7. You've got to be kidding. Are these space women you're talking about? Most women (or men for that matter) don't even know how to introspect, and it takes a lot more than five seconds to understand romantic love. It took me years of introspection, and I have yet to meet another woman who understands it.
  8. Pleats bulge and make your hips look big. Take a look at your silouette in the mirror when you wear pleated pants. Sit down, get up and look in the mirror again. Don't just look from the front, turn sideways and look. The no pleats rule goes for women too.
  9. I don't think you need CUI before OPAR, and ITOE *should* come after OPAR, because you need to understand metaphysics before delving into epistemology. I agree that VOS should be the book you start with. I would also get a copy of the Ayn Rand Lexicon. All of these books are available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore at www.aynrand.org.
  10. You already know that you need self-esteem. That's the first step. Like we've all said, the self-esteem comes from achieving your goals. If you need more guidance on what to reflect on, try reflecting on these: - Why did you choose social work? Have you achieved any specific goals of which you are proud? What are they? List them on paper! Look at them. Think some more. - Why do you consider yourself an artist? It sounds horrible that you say you're an artist but afraid of not doing well enough. I, too, am artistic. It takes practice to be good and to stay good. What do you want to achieve artistically? Go practice! You won't do it perfectly the first time. Start with sketches (if it's painting, drawing, or sculpture). With each sketch, examine what you like, what you don't like. Then re-sketch. Do it over and over again. Save your first sketches, so you can look at them and periodically compare your progress. It won't be the best the first time! DaVinci made a LOT of sketches before drawing his masterpieces. - Are there other things you have achieved? Look at where you are now compared to 5 years ago, then 10 years ago. List your accomplishments, e.g. finishing school, getting your own place, etc. Write them down and reflect on them.
  11. Guys, looks don't matter much to women. WE'RE the ones that need to be good-looking. Women put on dresses, makeup, high heels, etc. to attract a man. WOMEN are the VALUE. MEN are the VALUERS. Women want someone they can look up to. You have to have self-esteem. Real self-esteem doesn't come from #1. That's a second hander's way of pretending to have self-esteem. Real self esteem comes from achieving your goals. (I shouldn't have to separate real from percieved, but apparently it's unclear.)
  12. You say you're a social worker by trade but you're really an artist. THAT'S why you have no self-esteem; you're not feeling fulfilled. Reading doesn't give you self-esteem; achieving your goals does. Being good-looking isn't really that important to women - we want someone we can respect and look up to. Women don't want to have sex out of pity with some guy who reminds them of their pathetic kid brother. We want our own personal hero. But let's back up a bit - why are you asking HERE? Are you looking for a romantic relationship? Re-read your post - it doesn't sound like it. You say you wish you were a hedonist rock star or something and you want to get "laid." As you've found, the only girls who will go for that are girls who have even lower self-esteem than you do. Go get yourself a hooker if that's what you want. If, however, you want an Objectivist woman, you have to BE an Objectivist hero. If you want to be an Objectivist, you have to start by addressing your self-esteem issues. edited for typo
  13. I've had the same experience with being able to trust my emotions more, so I can see where your coming from. Since I *know* where my emotions come from (as I'm sure most of the other test takers and the test authors don't), I think that logic and reason are the most accurate and all-encompassing answers to those questions. edited for clarity
  14. I have taken Myers-Briggs several times and always come out as an INTJ (borderline ISTJ) Here are some of the profile descriptions: E - Extraversion - tend to focus on people and things I - Introversion - tend to focus on ideas and impressions S - Sensing - tend to focus on the present and concrete information gained from their senses (described to me as "can't see the forest for the trees" or "detail oriented") N - Intuition - tend to focus on the future, with a view toward patterns and possibilities (described to me as "big picture") T - Thinking - tend to base their decisions primarily on logic and on objective analysis of cause and effect F - Feeling - tend to base their decisions primarily on the values and subjective evaluation of person-centered concerns J - Judging - tend to like a planned and organized approach to life and prefer to have things settled P - Perceiving - tend to like a flexible and spontaneous approach to life and prefer to keep their options open Some stats from when I took this test with my colleagues at work: 75% of people in the US who have reported their results are Extroverts. 70% of people in the US who have reported their results are Sensing. 51% of people in the US who have reported their results are Thinking. 75% of people in the US who have reported their results are Judging. Obviously, the test is riddled with false dichotomies. It would be interesting to write a similar test with choices that actually make sense. What I found interesting the last couple of times I took the test was the way that people reacted to the results. They flat out refused to judge people based on their personality types. Why would you take such a test, if not to assist in your analysis and judging of people?
×
×
  • Create New...