Is the ladder theory true?

So the ladder theory wasn't made by the guy in my original post?
It was made by
proffesional psychologists all over the world
?


_xxx_ said:
Let's put it anouther way: what would be credible to you? Who's a better source than the whole bunch of proffesional psychologists all over the world?
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
So the ladder theory wasn't made by the guy in my original post?

No. That's just his wording. If you could read german, I could post you a bunch of links, even with nice graphs. Like this: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/ruca/ruca1_2000/klein.html

EDIT:
Ok, here: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~buston/pdfs/buston.emlen.pnas.pdf

For example, it has been shown repeatedly that women exhibit
a stronger preference than men for attributes of ambition, social
status, and financial wealth in a partner as well as for a desire for
children and a commitment to family, all of which are indicative
of the partner’s ability to obtain and willingness to invest the
resources necessary for the survival and success of offspring
(e.g., refs. 2–10). Similarly, men exhibit a stronger preference
than women for features of youthfulness, health, and physical
attractiveness in a partner, all of which are indicative of high
fecundity and reproductive potential (e.g., refs. 2, 4–8, and
10–12). Furthermore, men often exhibit a stronger preference
than women for indicators of sexual fidelity, presumably because
males suffer higher costs from being cuckolded than do females
(5, 10, 13–14). Although researchers have focused on the differences
in the mean level of preference expressed by the sexes,
it should be emphasized that all studies have also reported
considerable overlap in the distribution of preferences expressed
by males and females (e.g., refs. 4 and 5).
The reproductive potential of an individual’s partner, however,
may not be the only factor that contributes to the reproductive
output of their partnership. The stability of the partnership
may also influence its reproductive output (15). In socially
monogamous societies, an individual with an open-ended mate
preference (a preference for the most preferred partner available)
would only obtain a stable long-term partnership if shehe
waited until the more preferred, same-sex members of the
population had paired. Individuals who did not wait would be
prone to form partnerships with mates of very different quality
than themselves, and such partnerships are expected to be
unstable, because the higher-quality mate has many opportunities
for trading up in partner quality. A strategy more likely to
lead to stable long-term pairings would be to assess one’s own
relative quality as a mate, form a mate preference based on this
self-perception, and choose a partner of similar mate quality (10,
16, 17). Such a strategy requires cognitive processes that enable
an individual to assess both his or her own relative quality, and
relative quality of the potential mate, within the local population.
There is evidence to suggest that both self-perception and
mate assessment are relativistic and may be influenced by
exposure to different local populations. Self-perception as a
potential mate is influenced by exposure to desirable same-sex
models. Women lowered their self-assessment when exposed to
profiles of physically attractive females (18–20), whereas men
lowered their self-assessment when exposed to profiles of socially
dominant males (20). Further, an individual’s assessment of their
mate is influenced by exposure to desirable opposite-sex models.
Women’s feelings about their current partner were affected
adversely by exposure to profiles of socially dominant men (21),
whereas men’s feelings about their current partner were affected
adversely by exposure to profiles of physically attractive women
(21–23). For these cognitive processes to result in stable longterm
partnerships, all one needs to show is that self-perception
positively correlates with the selectivity of mate preference.

And more:
http://psych.unn.ac.uk/users/nick/EPlec06.htm
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/kahughes/Hughes_et_al_(1999).pdf

If that's not enough, Google on... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't a clue.
It seemed like they were talking about mating with animals which is different from the original one I read which spoke about females looking for a male with the same qualities.

There is some very disturbing stuff in there if true.

_xxx_ said:
Still waiting for your comment, Kruno. Was that credible enough? Your opinion?
 
Two of the links I posted deal only with humans. But the patterns are still more or less the same as with animals when you look under the surface - the instincts still rule over mind unfortunately.
 
I think there is many parts of truth in there and it is funny as hell, but not all encompassing or fully accurate.

His definition of a cuddle bitch for example, while it may suck it does often lead farther unless the dude is inept...

But he also leaves out a fundamental point, women for whatever reason are attracted to the biker/outlaw not b/c of power, or money, but rather the false sense of danger. Many women seem to get a thrill out of putting themselves in shitty situations...
 
Sxotty said:
But he also leaves out a fundamental point, women for whatever reason are attracted to the biker/outlaw not b/c of power, or money, but rather the false sense of danger. Many women seem to get a thrill out of putting themselves in shitty situations...

It's more about the male being "strong" and having the "courage" to deal with dangerous/shitty sitations and females being attracted to those (mostly false) attributes.
 
just to give my 2 lipe ...

it is oversimplified (but funny for sure), there are points that are true, and the theory could be applicable to some people, but in general we humans are much more complicated than that.

While you could say that women go for power (either consciously or not), there you get into semantics, and "what is power" discussion... for some its money, for some it's "alpha - male", for some it's "intellectual", blah blah blah... and than the whole "specific" part goes to the air... as for the ladder... well almost anything in life can be metaphorically described as a ladder. As long as you can value them... you can put ATI and Nvidia on a ladder too if you want. Card X has more bandwith therefore it is higher up on the ladder :doh: ... Nevertheless a funny read, and the most "to the point" part I'd say it was that men don't have separate scales, as "two dimensions" we could get it on with anyone (almost :D ) but women do tend to create a separate dimension (or few) in their version of the reality, and defining one in courtship season as - "friend" + the difficulties or some facts about being in that dimension of her perception... and crossing from one category to another is a tricky business :D ... but women tend to have different categories for anything, doesn't have to be just sex, but just views on certain aspect of life, how things are "meant to be done" etc... from my point of view (could generalize and say - men) this is totally irrational, but I think it has to do with emotion - reason relationship in women, which is some kind of instinct that has no proper "rational explanation" but they find it useful throught thier life (as it turns out to be true quite often) but than on the downside they do abuse this construct quite a few times too as they go along.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do Japanese girls go for the guy with the biggest penis?
I read this on the Internet. Probably on a porn site.
 
I must add that I do have two ladders as well, based on some bad experiences I had in the past. But I won't go any deeper into that now.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
Why do Japanese girls go for the guy with the biggest penis?
I read this on the Internet. Probably on a porn site.

Don't trust everything you read on the internet ;)
 
Back
Top