Who here has been single all their life.

（´Д｀;;) i get really nervous around girls for some reason, especially when i like them. Is it game over for me?

>>25
I feel the same way. I seem to have no trouble attracting women but then wimp out and it becomes nothing. I am in my early twenties, but I do still have hope for the future. It is just plain old simple fear afterall, and fear can be conquered with a sustained effort. The important thing is to keep meeting women rather than run away because of fear - run away and you cut off all hope.

I feel many people who posted here don't appreciate the world from the female's point of view or feel that females are somehow radically different from males. I am not sure if or how that helps...

>>40

Do the math.  There's also the probability of being BELOW average.  Not average does not imply better.

4chan, what do you think about going after BOTH?

4chan, what do you think about kicking >>43 in the nuts?

>>44

andy, you cuntrag.

>>42
Did the Math... Since society is bullshit and massive, what's considered standard social beings, covering 97% of them, make up for the lowest shit and the barely above average folks. Most individuals, i.e. most non-social beings stand well above that, but don't push averages high because they exist in a very small number. In a box diagram, people would be like: |[..|.]--------| , where [..|.] is the society.

>>46

Society being bullshit is an unsupported assumption.
97%?  Where's this figure come from?
And there have got to be individuals below the mean.  Human behavioral distributions tend to follow a Normal distribution if not only due to the Strong Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem.

A boxplot representing humans should follow
|-----[--|--]-----|
Last time I checked no behavior followed a chi-square or F-distribution.

I don't see how individuals <-> nonsocial.  Furthermore, how that is above any kind of average.  It seems like all you're doing is glorifying nonconformists, assuming antisocial behavior is a  symptom of being better than others.

You fail stochastics AND statistics.

By the way, what variable are you measuring?

>>46
You fail teh boxplots.

You're saying 97% of people fit between the 25th and 75th quantiles.  50% != 97%, dumbass.

>>47
Society being bullshit is an unsupported assumption.
You do stupid things "socially". You want to belong to societies, so you do all kinds of stupid shit to. You follow conventions. You lose individualism. You depend on others. You are vulnerable. You are somebody else's pawn. And the stupidest of all is ruler and model.

97%?  Where's this figure come from?
97%, 90%, or even 80% (which is IMO being too easy on it), it doesn't change what I said. It's my guess based on empirical observation through many years, and YMMV, but it may not vary that much.

And there have got to be individuals below the mean.
Yeah. The more socially "successful" part of the society, there are many of them and they are all in the bottom part.

I don't see how individuals <-> nonsocial.  Furthermore, how that is above any kind of average.
Well, if you think for yourself, you'll realize how stupid society is, and stay clear away from it. Otherwise, you let "society" think for you, become a part of it, and lose all individuality (besides being "unique", all emo fags and goths are "unique", but they're all the same shit anyways).

>By the way, what variable are you measuring?
Human worth.


>>48
Indeed, I wasn't explicit enough. [..|.] covered most of them - make that 97%, 90%, or whatever you want as long as it's the vast majority.

>>25
I've been asked out several times, and even when I really liked the girl I said, "No, I don't think we'd be good for each other."

For me, it is a fear of commitment; I'm afraid that I'll make a mistake and either get trapped in a bad relationship, or I'll hurt someone else.

I know I've hurt some girls by rejecting them in this fashion, too. A girl whose had been single her whole life was brave enough to ask me out about two years ago.. and I shot her down without even thinking about it. Since then, she went on a few dates with some of my friends, but nothing lasting.

I feel bad for her, because I was the first person she asked out.. and I rejected her, not because I disliked her, but because I was afraid to say "Yes".

>>49

I still don't see how group identification is a negative trait.  And how extreme individualism is a plus.  Conversely someone would say you were a sociopath.  A misanthropic hermit.

Empirical observation?  Confirmation bias, availability heuristic.

|Well, if you think for yourself, you'll realize how stupid society is, and stay clear away from it.
Looks like you're living in the wrong society.

|Yeah. The more socially "successful" part of the society, there are many of them and they are all in the bottom part.
Again, you regard situational consciousness as a negative.

|Indeed, I wasn't explicit enough
...Or you know, that still isn't a well-defined distribution. And you still fail boxplots.

|Human worth.
...Yes, like I can measure that hypothetical construct with a robust and parsimonious measure.  Then repeat it.  It's your subjective opinion.  The entire Social Psychology/Sociology community is laughing at you.

For one, I'd like to see you name an exemplar of the ideal person of utmost worth.  Five bucks says you'll say Maddox.

By society did you mean Debord's Spectacle?  In which case it still doesn't measure human worth.

HI WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GIRLS OKAY

>>51

>I still don't see how group identification is a negative trait.  And how extreme individualism is a plus.
Well, we have a brain, let's use it, lol. A group of N people has 1 personality, thus every one has 1/N personality and is 1/N worth in this department.

>Conversely someone would say you were a sociopath.  A misanthropic hermit.
And I probably am. Some other Anonymous posted his dream would be to live in an otherwise inhabited island with broadband, and I found the idea so tempting.

>Looks like you're living in the wrong society.
Not really, it's considered above average by other groups, yet I find the social average so lowly and stupid, so brainless and lambish.

>It's your subjective opinion.
No shit, Sherlock. Even so, I'm honest sure enough of it to defend it, as I think my values are correct, and by the way, although it's tempting to place myself at the top of the list, I by no means think I'm that worthy. I definitely think I'm in that top 3% (as many intelligent people from this board are - probably you too), but I can think of people more useful than I am which should be granted more power and wealth than I have accordingly.

>The entire Social Psychology/Sociology community is laughing at you.
The entire not-fucked-up community is laughing at nihilists.

>For one, I'd like to see you name an exemplar of the ideal person of utmost worth.  Five bucks says you'll say Maddox.
Lol, close enough! Maddox is indeed a worthy individual, though he's not perfect (not that perfection exists). Other highly worthy individuals from different areas could be/have been Einstein, Dalai Lama, the Queen of Spain, and perhaps Nietzsche, who was at least very witty.

>Debord's Spectacle
Don't know what it is. By society I mean a mass of brainless lambs who do what punks, jerks, religious leaders, and "kewl" people tell them (which, in turn, aren't much better), can't see the forest, nor the trees (in fact they're fucking blind), are rebellious because rebellion is kewl, piss on their own culture and system constantly, and have a tendency to make terrible things to their hair and smoke LSD in a tree house, especially if young.

I just hate those fucktards. Just to help clarify how I think, I'll say I'm not anti-system (in fact, I'd like the system to be applied properly, even if I don't fully agree with it), I hate rebellion (especially young people's, which comes bundled with a double dose of retardation), I hate leftards, I hate drugs, and I often value Nature and the Earth's future as an ecosystem over human life, including my own.

>>53
Crap, I forgot to say I hate religion. With a passion. In fact, this issue deserved a post for itself. Lots and lots of hate ^_^.

>>54

Eh, religion is for people who feel a need for cosmic closure.  If you enjoy that kind of thing good for you, you know?

>>53
Sharing a personality.  lol.  The mathematics don't quite work out that way.  I still don't see how self-actualization is superior.  (Maslow was a douche, by the way).  Often people are drawn to a group due to commonality in interest, values, ideology.  The development sometimes antecedes the identification label.  You're unique only until you find out there's a name for what kind of person you are.  Something to that effect.

Uninhabited island.  Damn, where would I get my booze?  Distill it from dead sea turtles?

Google for "The Society of the Spectacle."  Pretty high-level reading material unless you're well versed in sociology and social psychology.

People aren't as brainless as you think.  I see them as predictable.  They inevitably fall into patterns of behavior and cognition.  If you make them aware of this fact they will do anything in their power to prove you wrong (and vindicate their belief that they are unique), which is a pattern in itself.  I personally don't mind this.  It's great for making friends, pissing off idiots, wooing the girls, and getting business hookups.  In this way I find myself objectifying average people as almost algorithmic.  They have comfort zones which limit their range of behaviors.  Makes social interaction very rewarding...at least for me.

In conclusion, don't hate--manipulate!  Your views are far more extreme and are shaded with availability heuristic judgement than mine, but essentially we agree on a few points:

Average intelligence is not very high.  (In fact, it's average.  Duh.)
Average people rely heavily on social constructs. (Everyone does in different ways, depending on disposition, culture, Collectivism vs Individualism, etc)

I think you perceive average people as below average.  Your illustration of the distribution shows this.  In actuality, statistical laws dictate all observations will regress towards the mean.  Additionally, any sufficiently large sample follows the Normal distribution.

>>55
>Often people are drawn to a group due to commonality in interest, values, ideology.  The development sometimes antecedes the identification label.
For intellectual groups, granted. Those are more or less worthy, SHARE groups. Getting drunk at a pub on friday night is a very different kind of group though.

>Google for "The Society of the Spectacle."  Pretty high-level reading material unless you're well versed in sociology and social psychology.
I am not, although I often find names existed for stuff I had observed.

>People aren't as brainless as you think.  I see them as predictable.
I think predictability is a consequence of lacking intelligence (which brings originality, wit). But yes, I've found lambs so easy to toy with and I do it when I want to get something, but I don't enjoy social interaction for the heck of it much outside geeky online boards.

>I think you perceive average people as below average.
Perhaps I consider the average very shitty and unsuitable. For example, there are relatively few people I could have such an enjoyable discussion as this. All most people ever care about is chit-chat. Girls are all like "I saw John, he was with Cathy, lol"; Guys are all like "Beckam rocks, he kicks spheres in an awesome fashion, lol". They aren't smart enough to understand even the most retarded, VIP-quality jokes I can think of. And manipulating them is simple and kind of fun sometimes, but without a purpose, I don't do it too much.

Well you have to take into consideration that chit-chat is a form of ritual wherein peoplehave no particular topic in mind and are in hopes of engaging in deeper activity.  Another hypothesis is that it serves to build labels and characterizations with others.  Girls may talk to reaffirm their clique bond.  Guys may do so to reaffirm group identity as virile.  Again, this all goes into the self-monitoring/self-fulfilling/Spectacle hypothesis of sociology.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, though seemingly moot to those not in the engagement.

So, back to girls.  WHICH?!

>>58
the most intoxicated and incapacitated one, duh!

>>56
Save your opinion of society for another topic. This one is reserved for people who have never had any luck in their romantic life.

I think even the smartest girl is stupider than the stupidest boy. Girls really are the weaker sex in mind and body.

>>61
Then you'll complain that THERE ARE NO WOMEN IN THE INTERNET.

My personal thought is that women are:

- Better at studying stuff
- Worse at concentration
- Equally as smart, but often underused
- More evil and manipulative
- Colder (which is good)
- Better looking
- And who cares for physical strength, that's for monkeys to use.

...huh?  How does that even work?

how can you tell if a girl likes you....on the internet!?

>>64

Ask to see his penis.

>>61
lol misogyny

I have been single because I guess all the girls in my age group (21- 24) are soo freaking immature and want to be like "available" all the time. And they always never appreciate the "nice guy" and see it as a turn off.

Maybe because the way I treat girls is more appropiate for when they reach their 30s or something. Which by then they lose most of their hotness. And dun ask me to go look for older women because that is like ewwwww.

>>67
I hear ya, man.

>>67
By being a "nice guy" you're probably appearing dull and boring.

>>67
You can say that again.

I think most of us do not take an active choice in choosing to be single. I mean if there was one that really chose to be single, its just becos he was tired of playing the game and hasnt met the right girl yet.

If most of us here are "nice guys", well we are single because girls want some wildness in their life. But i think its maybe not the choice of boys that girls prefer that is wrong here but OUR choice of girls perhaps? That we should go find us some nice girls instead?

It would end up being the same though because i think its safe to say that ALL girls want a bad boy. Again let me say what >>67 said. When girls want a nice boy is when the bad boy doesnt want them no more. And that is only gonna happen when they grow old and thinking seriously of marriage.

i think if you use ape like instincts (being very sexual) you will get the girl faster than trying to get the girl by being a 'nice guy'.

And lets not kid ourself. Nice guys always finish last. Its never going to be like those feel-good romance movies you see where you see the underdog (the nice guy usually) getting the girl.

>>71

That would be me.  Sick of girls all going after a Darcy.  It's by my GRACE that they get more than a casual friendship.  Not wasting my time on little girls trying to play sweet-thang-in-a-rough-place.  Don't expect me to take you in later when you're looking for a stable income, slut.

>>67
Or, you know, being a nice guy doesn't count for shit.  It never did.  It implicates you are a notch lower than a girl on the social ladder.  Why should she waste her time on someone lower than her?  Remember all humans "don't want to be in a club that would have then as memebers."  Make sure they know they're not good enough for you.  It's the only way to keep her interested.

I'm single because no girl I've met is good enough for me.  I've only met one who was incredible, but we're on opposite sides of the world now.

Quit yer whining guys, enjoy your youth for all you can:  do stupid shit with the guys.  Don't let worrying over women take away from your time on this planet.  You're missing out on a lot of happiness.

>>71
>girls want some wildness in their life
What a light way to say they are stupid and like shitty gangs.

>But i think its maybe not the choice of boys that girls prefer that is wrong here but OUR choice of girls perhaps?
The large majority of them are like this. Little else to choose. Girls are like Internet domains, the ones you like are already taken.

>That we should go find us some nice girls instead?
If you can tell me where I'll donate all my money to 4chan. Oh, wait, that'd make me unattractive to girls.

>>72
True, problem is, regardless of how much do we love hentai, only apes can really show ape like instincts.

>>74
I'm a big pervert, yet sex is not what I really look/care for for girls; all I really want a girlfriend for is cuddling and sharing and shit. If that makes me a nice boy I'm sorry (I'm a pretty dark person myself, not evil, just dark, and no, not goth nor emofag). Not that I'll change for a girl, not now. And now I'm single because no girl I've met is good enough for me, too.

>enjoy your youth for all you can:  do stupid shit with the guys.
Well, we're posting at world4ch, right? :D

Friend of mine who got tired of the game said to me that maybe the easiest way to get a nice gf is to wait a girl to chase you instead and let her do all the legwork.

Sounds good in theory. In reality yes girls might approach you first but eventually you as the guy is one who will be doing all the legwork of asking her out, places to go etc. And I always find that the girls who really go after their man are like the really desperate clingy types.

Though my females friends always tell me girls always want the guy to make the first move. So maybe my friends theory is wrong and just sitting idly by will just keep him single all his life.

>>76
eventually you as the guy is one who will be doing all the legwork of asking her out, places to go etc.
Exactly, because today's society is so not-sexist except when it's what girls want.

my females friends always tell me girls always want the guy to make the first move
That's because they think asking a guy out, or apologizing for something, is to humble themselves before the guy, and they should never do that. Of course, it's not only fine that guys do - it's a must.

i have a solution for all of you, go to japan

they arnt like the western girls.

>>75
I'm >>74.  You think exactly like me.

>>78
But they try to be.