Ladder Theory

[Trifoilum]

The method of presentation is extremely crass. At heart I would like to believe that this theory holds no validity on the interaction between the two sexes. Upon reflection I've observed this theory in action countless times and it carries alot of truth to it. This is the first time I've actually read the theory.

Upon time, I agreed with this. I personally believe that IF the believe is "looks, and money, are important", then it's an uncomfortable, cold, hard GENERAL truth. (the old simple question; "would you want your lover more pretty / richer than before?" comes to mind) my above rant still goes, tho; especially the presentation being rather mocking.

but if the believe is "looks, and money, are the only quality needed to judge people for romantic relationship and other things were just it secretly tweaked", or if women should date either a leather biker or Donald Trump, and men should only date Playboy Bunnies, then here's a middle finger. Unfortunately, most people seems to take it in the latter way.

Also, romantic relationship =/= dating =/= sex, in this case, I think. >_>; I..think people date / sleep with beautiful people regardless of brain capacity, but generally try to choose their long-term mate carefully*, physically, economically, mentally, and intellectually.

*Cougars, gold diggers, mistresses, and mail brides not included.

 

[Trifoilum]

just some kind of an update I think;

http://ladderwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page

A somewhat more comprehensive, less offending description (at least the initial ones). That's all I gotta said without being biased.

 

[Barnabas]

So this is what women want apparently, from the OP

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Says:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] I want a man who is motivated and has goals.
Means: I want a rich man[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*BS*
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Says:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] I want a man who knows how to treat a woman.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Means: I want a rich man[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How does that translate to rich? This sounds more like an issue of respect.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Says:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] He's from a really good family.
Means: He's from a really rich family.

Or, he comes from a non-broken family with a mother and father and has a positive outlook on "family".

Who wrote this shit?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Incredibly, I find that women will settle for a guy who is just ambitious and doesn't want to settle in his shitty job and never see progress again. You don't have to be rich to be ambitious. From what I have figured out, women just want a guy who is going to keep plugging away and trying to improve life not just for him but his loved ones. Most women I know would rather build something with someone who is an active partner then to just marry some random rich asshole.

I have joke book that says something similar

 

[KorJax]

How anyone takes this seriously when it's from something called the "Stupidity Network" is beyond me.

Don't have the energy to explain why this doesn't apply to me at all

 

[Trifoilum]

so out of 2 pages and some people doesn't agree, and the rest questions some aspects of it. Apparently NFs are appalled by this theory, or at least dislike it ? (In content and/or method of speaking)

How anyone takes this seriously when it's from something called the "Stupidity Network" is beyond me.

The followers would be the intellectual whores themselves?

 

[KorJax]

so out of 2 pages and some people doesn't agree, and the rest questions some aspects of it. Apparently NFs are appalled by this theory, or at least dislike it ? (In content and/or method of speaking)


The followers would be the intellectual whores themselves?

It's stupid because it's illogical to try and establish a blanket generalization as an overall explanation for human behavior, and most intelligent people know this.

And it's genreally accepted that trying to predict results based completely on percieved "natural instincts"** doesn't work in the context of the human pysche. If it did, then we would know a whole lot more about the anatomy and function of the brain than we currently do, and the workings of the mind would not be problems many psychologists and neurologists spend entire lifetimes trying to solve.

This article is nothing more than fun superstition trying to sound legit by using words like "theory" and using graphs. I am sure ladder theory applies to some people (mostly teenagers I would imagine, who live in certain circumstances and haven't mentally or emotionally matured yet), but definatly not all people and definatly not me. Especailly since I am gay, and if ladder theory were true it would be impossible for me to ever have a male friend, let alone a male friend who is gay and have it exist outside the scope of a desire for sex. When in fact, this is completely false. And just about every relationship I do try and form, I seek a strong bond and a sharing of experiences, NOT sex which I like to do as more of a nice side-benefit than the sole driving force of my relations with others.


**Which are not actual valid pieces of evidence, considering for the most part they are just made up on the spot for what the causal person determine to be natural based on casual observation from zoo animals.

 

[Trifoilum]

It's stupid because it's illogical to try and establish a blanket generalization as an overall explanation for human behavior, and most intelligent people know this.

And it's genreally accepted that trying to predict results based completely on percieved "natural instincts"** doesn't work in the context of the human pysche. If it did, then we would know a whole lot more about the anatomy and function of the brain than we currently do, and the workings of the mind would not be problems many psychologists and neurologists spend entire lifetimes trying to solve.

This article is nothing more than fun superstition trying to sound legit by using words like "theory" and using graphs. I am sure ladder theory applies to some people (mostly teenagers I would imagine, who live in certain circumstances and haven't mentally or emotionally matured yet), but definatly not all people and definatly not me. Especailly since I am gay, and if ladder theory were true it would be impossible for me to ever have a male friend, let alone a male friend who is gay and have it exist outside the scope of a desire for sex. When in fact, this is completely false. And just about every relationship I do try and form, I seek a strong bond and a sharing of experiences, NOT sex which I like to do as more of a nice side-benefit than the sole driving force of my relations with others.


**Which are not actual valid pieces of evidence, considering for the most part they are just made up on the spot for what the causal person determine to be natural based on casual observation from zoo animals.

A cynical, bitter superstition, I would say. the general message that everything is all about sex for males, and all about power for women, is a bit.... hmm. >_>; cynical point of view of humanity? *bleh, my words*

But indeed, the way I think about it; follow through the theory all the way and you'll get an alpha male. A womanizing, rather sexist, sex-oriented alpha male, yes; but one with (presumably) tons of power-seeking, competitive women all around his limbs like an Axe advertising. Everything men (and women) wanted, right?

*yawns*
And yes; homosexual relationships were not even discussed there -A- I think most likely because by applying that theory, it will play directly towards the cliche of gays being nymphomaniacs and lesbians being commitment freaks, and.. >_>;
Edit : Ah; I think I've been quite biased in this theory. I apologize for the subjective sentiment.

 

[corvidae]

Seems to me that the author has taken some of the theories on the effect evolutionary impulses have on mate selection, and then blown them out of proportion (for example, he seems to have ignored the studies that show people tend to be drawn to those who have a similar economic status, which somewhat undermines his idea that women most often go after the guy with the most money).

The ladder theory addresses this issue:

Well why wouldn't you want someone just as they were but with a little more money or a little better looks? There is one instance, that is when gaining those things would put them high enough on the ladders of others that you could no longer compete. We know that if someone improves themselves drastically they will move on to better people unless they feel a very acute sense of loyalty.

I think the ladder theory has far more validity than many people, especially NFs, would like to believe. Evolutionary psychology may be repugnant, but that's not an excuse to pretend it does not exist.

I think a similar situation is where people claim they are not prejudiced. Studies have shown that people are prejudiced, whether consciously/deliberately or not. Humans are not omniscient, but if we weren't willing to use imprecise judgment, we would die while thinking "I'm 90% sure I will crash if I don't hit on the breaks, but I want to be 100% sure before I stop." /tangent