Search Results: false theories

We probably heard about, or literally heard, a guy say this before.

There are many theories about why this statement is said.

---------

How do you think this idea of "females give bad dating advice" came about in human existence?

Do you agree or disagree with the idea of females giving bad dating advice?

Please vote on the poll and respond as much as you like.

Thanks for your input. 8-)

Should holding a false ideology which you are incapable of even approaching to empirically debate be protected from collateral ridicule or other backlash in an open forum? Should everyone's opinion count for something, regardless of how stupid or false it is?

For example, religious fundamentalists preaching a bunch of fairy tales against empirical statements and never getting called out as having no credibility during or after a discussion. Or putting out random political statements and then playing the victim about being incapable of empirically rebutting any feedback.

Of course there is the issue of free speech, which most in the west would argue should be a protected right. But should the mere fact of holding an opinion be enough justification to sway the rules of engagement of the environment if only because it's popular enough to Because trouble or for some other reason?

And certainly, there's something to be said about the "democratic process", but let's not forget that there's a thin line between democracy and mob rule. Democracy is a lofty theory while mob rule has given rise to things such as slavery, institutional oppression and genocide

So how far should "freedom" go above the rights of less popular individuals? Is it simply that the choice that should be considered the most valid between two opposing ones is that which comes from the largest or most influential group? Or should the majority simply be appeased in so far as they don't Because trouble? If there's a balance, where would you define it to be closer to?

Vote on the option that most closely matches your criteria and explain if needed.

9/11

elvis

tupac

biggie

jfk

roswell

crop circles

and of course...

1 New World Order

1.1 Federal Reserve System

2 False flag operations

3 Wars

4 Coups d'état

5 Official Conspiracy Theories

6 Assassinations

7 US Presidency

7.1 Clinton Body Count

7.2 Barack Obama birth conspiracy theories

8 Ethnicity, race and religion

8.1 Armenian International Conspiracy

8.2 Arab–Israeli relations

8.3 "Babylon" and racist oppression

8.4 Eurabia

8.5 Arab-fascist axis

8.6 La Reconquista (Mexico)

8.7 Baha'i

8.8 Apocalyptic prophecies

8.9 Bible conspiracy theory

8.10 Catholicism as a veiled continuation of Babylonian paganism

8.11 Dominionism

8.12 Jerusalem Temple Candelabrum in the Vatican cellars

8.13 Jewish world domination

9 Technology and weapons

9.1 Suppression of technologies

9.2 Development of weapons technology

9.3 Weapons testing

9.4 Surveillance, espionage and intelligence agencies

10 Media

10.1 DTV Transition

11 Medicine

11.1 Drug legalization

11.2 Chemtrails

11.3 Diet

11.4 Creation of diseases

11.5 Water fluoridation

11.6 Traditional, natural and alternative medicines

12 Peak oil

13 Real groups said to be involved in conspiracies

13.1 Alleged groups associated with conspiracy theories

13.2 The Plan

14 Paranormal activity

14.1 Evil aliens

14.2 Extraterrestrials

GirlsAskGuys is a website made for people seeking advice and opinions. Those who lack certain knowledge seek to fill that void, while those with experience share what they've learned. At the end of the day, the main goal is to build the ultimate archive of questions and answers pertaining to life between both genders.

At least ideally, that is what it should be.

... But clearly, it isn't.

There are plenty of honest souls who come to seek advice (and are willing to use it), and there are those who take pride in helping others (with genuine concern). But the bulk of why I am asking this question has to do with the Self Righteous, the Sad Saps, and the Trolls.

- The Self Righteous ask questions not because they want advice or that they did anything particularly wrong (in their mind, at least). They want validation. They don't care if 99% of feedback disagrees with their views, they only care about the 1% who kisses their ass and validates their wrong-doing. Why is this bad? Because honest people take time out of their lives to give them the truth, while the Self Righteous individual had no intentions of accepting it in the first place.

-The Sad Sap has real life issues. They need advice more than anybody, and they certainly ask the right questions. While they do acknowledge their problems, solutions are not what they seek. That's right, they don't have any intention of taking advice and springing into action. No, they want your pity. As problematic as their lives may seem, they don't aim to make it better. They aim for a sources of sympathy and false hope, much like a bum drinking his hard liquor.

- The Troll can be many types of people, but they all share common characteristics. Regardless of age, they have the essence of immaturity and disregard. Why? My theory is, they can't find legitimate outlets for leisure, so they troll along anonymously wreaking verbal havoc. Just because they are bored and likely have no social life, their means to cope is to make everyone else miserable. Why? Because while they may be inferior in reality, online they have their moments of superiority. Most users can spot a troll.

People, now is your chance to admit what you really are. The votes are anonymous, your ego is not at stake. Be honest!

You've probably heard about this "Game": Wait X amount of days to call him/ her; Making yourself unavailable; ... simply put: "Playing hard to get". This theory is on the internet, in books, in movies, etc.. They're everywhere. They're like those news about wars that is reported on TV, newspapers, radio, etc. that you'd think wars happens in today's time more than ever before. But in fact they're not. Just because they're reported more than ever before due to better communication media (TV, internet, newspaper, radio) doesn't mean they happen more.

Similar to thosw war-stories it's like those "Playing hard to get"-theories: Just because they're seemingly everywhere doesn't mean, they're practiced by a lot persons.

The amounts of reports of wars in comparison to the actual numbers of wars. Just because there's a lot of documentary, reports and news about wars doesn't mean there are more wars then in former times. In fact it's decreased. Yet the conscious about wars has increased due to the different ways of today's reports of wars: radio, tv, internet, newspapers, etc.

I think it's the same with "playing hard to get". There are tons of material on "playing hard to get" on the interwebs, forums, books, movies, etc. that people think everybody or at least more than the actual numbers really doing it.

I've never met s.o. who plays hard to get. Everyone I'm talking to said, it's stupid and in fact it is. It contradicts the logic. Why should I repel s.o. who I like? Why should my interest increase, if s.o. turns me down? The only reason this "playing hard to get" became so popular in the media is it's more exciting and funnier. Or have you ever heard of a dating movie without any drama?

To Back up my theses, that hard-to-get is only rare to find resp. should only rare to be found, here's what scientists say:

Source: "The Journal Of Experimental Education" (Volume 39, Number 3, Spring 1971) by Elaine Walster (The University of Wisconsin); G. William Walster (The University of Wisconsin); Ellen Berscheid (University of Minnesota)

"It has often been suggested that individuals will prefer dates who play 'hard-to-get'. Two experiments were conducted [...]. This hypothesis was not confirmed [...]. It appears that playing-hard-to-get is not an effective strategy for increasing one's status. Apparently, all the world does love a lover.

[...]

In sum, the present data indicate that people simply like people who like people. There is no evidence for the hypothesized effectiveness of a hard-to-get strategy. Both hard-to-get hypothesis failed to receive even a suggestion of support."

But what's your take on that?