Out of 101 comments, no one mentions that this site is hosting an illegal copy of an artist's work? I mean, sure, the whole book is great... but shouldn't we be having a bit of respect for someone's intellectual property and not linking to it?
If Gorgorat.com has permission to print the book, or it's now in public domain, then I'm the first to say link to that pup... but I didn't see anything on the site to say this.
I'm a bit surprised that folks who make their living creating intellectual property are so blase about this. There were more comments about the inappropriate affiliate link than the fact that the book is still in press and under copyright.
Let's not devolve into "information wants to be free" and "the world is open source", but stick to the fact that the book is not free and open source in the US legal system at this point, AFAIK. Would we be linking to a hosted full copy of PG's excellent book Hackers etc. (http://www.paulgraham.com/hackpaint.html) to highlight one of his points? Probably not.
I'd have to agree with you on this. I read this book last year (got one of my coworkers to read it too) and I was so surprised at how awesome it was that I got "What Do You Care What Other People Think ?" and "Tuva or Bust". Both are really good books because you get to learn more about Richard Feynman and the way he thought about different things ("Surely" is a unique gem though). This particular chapter prompted my attention and by trying to find references online, I ended up at gorgora.com. I didn't want to reference a place I was not sure of so I did not. In hindsight, I should have written a blog post about it. Fortunately, according to whois the site will soon be down (unless my intuition is wrong about what "pending renewal or deletion" means).
It was something more along the lines of : "I went to Barnes & Noble, found this book, read extensive passages of it and decided to buy it". Besides, suggesting that is thievery is a bit over the top.
If he can give his house, his car, his money, etc. to his children, I don't see why he can't give them his copyright.
It would be very unfortunate if an author worked for 10 years (not unreasonable) on a fantastic novel, published it, it became a bestseller, and then he died one week later, and it instantly became public domain.
The publishing company that gave him an advance and spent money on marketing the book would lose money (and so they would probably never sign a deal with an old man or someone with bad health again), and the author's children would not benefit from their parent's 10 years of work. If his children died then 1 month later, surely their children (the author's grandchildren) should be able to benefit. It seems that length of time is more relevant than number of generations.
You touch on a good point. I think our copyright term in the US is far, far too long. But, until the copyright term is changed, it is the law and we should respect that, especially since most of the audiance on this site makes their living through IP of one kind or another.
Also, for this particular book, remember that the coauthor is alive, the primary author died fairly recently(1988) and this book wasn't published all that long ago(1985). So even if you agree with me that copyright terms are far too long, this one would probably still fall within one reduced to a reasonable time frame (I personally think the right number is around 25 years from first publication).
The fact that you consider 1988 to be "fairly recently" shows how badly US copyright laws and lobbying efforts have skewed people's perceptions. In 1988, there was no Facebook, Youtube, Google, Amazon, or web, cellphones were virtually unheard of, many of the people on this forum were unborn, the Berlin wall was standing and Michael Jackson was at the top of the world. It was a long, long time ago.
The justification for intellectual "property" is to encourage creators to work that will eventually belong to the public. I cannot believe that an author's decision to write a book at that time was influenced by whether or not could continue extracting profits in today's world.
The original copyright term of 14 years might have been defensible for books in that time, but extensions are very, very hard to justify in terms of the benefits to society.
And I think you may be closer to the mark with 14 years than I was with 25, though some franchises continue to be active longer than 14 years. The Simpsons for instance are still producing new episodes after roughly 23 years.
Either way, 1988 is extremely recent in comparison with the way the current copyright laws are written and many other books that are still under copyright after multiple decades. I may disagree with the law as it is now, but until we manage to get it changed, it is the law.
I was pretty hopeless at the whole dating game till I read The Game and started to try it out; it was a brilliant read. But the bare truth of it is that it doesn't actually work all that well. Oh yeh sure you can be a PUA and grab some fairly shallow girls - but it's a bit boring to be honest (and your success rate is fairly low - you "win" by asking lots of women). The only thing The Game gives you is confidence; which is 90% of the trick.
Indeed the best advice in this article is twofold.
- Confidence (subtly suggested) is a big factor. She's talking to you - if your not confident she'll only stay out of sympathy
- Dont pay for everything/anything; the best advice you will ever learn. I had plenty of crap dates spending loads of money in the hope of getting laid and it invariably went nowhere (a kiss on the cheek usually, bah). Till one date the girl randomly said "I'm not going to sleep with you tonight, can we just have a nice time" - so with no real investment in the evening we had an awesome fun just spending time together.
Now when I go on a date the first thing I'll say is "so do you want to get the first round or the second?". It's subtle but works brilliantly; usually we share the rounds and have a great time (and maybe sleep together, but I find that a less important conclusion now)
Against all the odds Im a pretty good dater. So when my friends ask for advice or help I usually say:
- go on a date just to have a good time with a girl, not just to sleep with her
- share the costs
- dont be gentlemanly at the end of the night. She's a person too and if she's not interested in getting laid she'll just say no
- be confident. She's on a date with you already!!
When reading any of the PUA stuff, you have to realize that the common threads are simply communicating effectively, having confidence, breaking out of your shell, and simply displaying YOUR personality in a fashion that makes you attractive.
I think the issue with a lot of people blindly following the advice and material is that they understand the science but don't understand the delivery. The things you learn here should help you out in ALL facets of life that involve social interaction. Mold them to fit your needs and you'll be set. Sounds like its worked for you!
Absolutely. Problem is everyone handing out PUA avoids telling you that because it is easier to market a "Method"(tm). Took me a few months and I know people who still dont "get it" years later.
The parent is great advice for dates and for life (is there a distinction, really?)
> go on a date just to have a good time with a girl, not just to sleep with her
- Be present with no expectations except creating a good time for yourself - others will be attracted to this
>share the costs
- Sharing is caring - don't pay for something (in this case, her drinks & dinner) unless you want to
> dont be gentlemanly at the end of the night. She's a person too and if she's not interested in getting laid she'll just say no
- Assume responsibility for what you want, and assume she'll take responsibility for what she wants
> be confident. She's on a date with you already!!
- Act like you've been there before... get out of your head and into the present moment.
I should have just down-voted the affiliate link and left it at that. Something's changed in the tenor of comments here on HN, and my reaction to it isn't productive. For the foreseeable future, I think I'm going to bite my tongue and read in silence.
I'm happy for people to benefit online in proportion to the value they provide to others. Post a thoughtful comment, write a review, link previously disparate ideas? Sure, put in an affiliate link. Hijack the top comment on a thread with just an Amazon link? Not so much.
At least you were up front about it, I'll give you that. :)
Hm, looks like it's a way to funnel PageRank into some spam links at the bottom of the page. I guess the theory is that people will link to that domain's copy of Surely You're Joking and pass some of the subsequent "google juice" onward to the spam.
"The female mind is capable of understanding analytic geometry... The difficulty may just be that we have never yet discovered a way to communicate with the female mind. If it is done in the right way, you may be able to get something out of it."
– Richard Feynman
Are you upset because a man said it? "Math is too male and we need to come up with more female ways of teaching it" is a pretty standard feminist idea. In fact, replace "math" with a wide variety of things.
Recall he's not working under modern PC strictures, not that he necessarily would have subjected himself to them anyhow. He gets to say it directly, not cloak it in endless verbiage.
That said, I actually disagree. Math is what it is and everybody regardless of gender must bend their brain to the subject and not the other way around. I think its fundamental inhumanity is dominant. But you seem to me to be casually implying that his statement is un-PC, and I think it's actually rather shockingly PC, just also very blunt.
No, I'm "upset" because the rest of the article makes it clear that Feynman really did think that women were inherently useless as math -- and even "rational thought" in general:
>Those people who have for years been insisting (in the face of all obvious evidence to the contrary) that the male and female are equally capable of rational thought may have something.
This is a bit rich for my tastes (but it will no doubt go down very well on this forum). I just don't see why it would be someone's favorite quote, unless they liked making fun of women's intellectual abilities.
I'm genuinely curious if anyone has studied the differences in the sexes when it comes to math.
Why is it no woman has won the fields medal? Why do many talented women stop their academic career at the bachelor and masters level when it comes to mathematics?
I think you would of been able to say that sexism in academia was a reason in the past, but I just don't think that really flies anymore.
Is it possible the genuinely is a difference between mathematical ability between men and women or do people this this is purely cultural?
Two recent studies directly address the question of whether greater male variability in mathematics is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Machin and Pekkarinen (19) reported that the M:F VR in mathematics was significantly >1.00 at the P < 0.05 level among 15-year-old students in 34 of 40 countries participating in the 2003 PISA and among 13-year-old students in 33 of 50 countries participating in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). However, these data also indicated that the math VR was significantly less than or insignificantly different from 1.00 for some of the countries that participated in these assessments (e.g., Table 2), a finding inconsistent with the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
...
Similarly, Penner's cross-nation analysis of the 1995 TIMSS data (20) showed that the proportion of girls scoring above the 95th percentile positively and significantly correlated with several measures of female equality and status, including equity in educational opportunities and representation in the labor force and political offices.
Best I could find in 5 minutes
Consequences in High School and College of Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability: A Longitudinal Perspective
Camilla Persson Benbow and Julian C. Stanley
The Johns Hopkins University
Between 1972 and 1974 the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) identified over 2,000 7th and 8th graders who scored as well as a national sample of 11th and 12th grade females on the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Mathematics or Verbal tests. A substantial sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability was found (Benbow & Stanley, 1980b, 1981). The consequences and development of this sex difference over the following 5 years were investigated longitudinally. Over 91 percent (1,996 out of 2,188 SMPY students) participated. This study established that the sex difference persisted over several years and was related to subsequent sex differences in mathematics achievement. The sex difference in mathematics did not reflect differential mathematics course taking. The abilities of males developed more rapidly than those of females. Sex differences favoring males were found in participation in mathematics, performance on the SAT-M, and taking of and performance on mathematics achievement and Advanced Placement Program examinations. SMPY females received better grades in their mathematics courses than SMPY males did. Few significant sex differences were found in attitudes toward mathematics.
Well, I can do better than that in 5 minutes but that's because I have paid a lot of attention to this question.
I think the most conclusive evidence that M/F math gaps are cultural in origin lies in international studies, where the gap ranges from negligible in progressive countries (eg. Scandinavia) to massive in less equal societies (eg Turkey).
Generally the anglo-saxon socities (UK, USA, Australia) are "middling" in this.
Of course this only covers "normal" math abilities (ie the ability to understand school/college math). "Genius" level ability is a lot harder to quantify, partly because it is such small number statistics and there are many confounding social variables to do with access to and selection pressures of post-graduate education.
Wanted to do more than upvote this - after a quick read, the linked paper seems an unusually useful resource on this subject, and I certainly recommend others take a look. Thanks for the link!
The "obvious evidence to the contrary" was the math gender gap, which was very real at the time. If you actually read the story, it's quite clear that Feynman is telling the story at his own expense (showing how wrong he had been about girls + math). There's no question he was sexist, but see _debug_ and blackguardx's tandem quote to see that he regarded them as equals mentally: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1197382
I did read the whole article, but did not get the impression that it was meant to be a joke at his expense. That's just not supported by the text. The most he's willing to say is that "if it is done in the right way, you may be able to get something out of it [the female mind]." Hardly a U-turn.
Also, the quote you referenced does absolutely nothing to show that RF regarded women as his mental equals. It just shows that he sometimes explained stuff to them -- not surprising, given that he presumably had some female students/colleagues.
In any case, whatever the merits of Feynman's position at the time, I'm bemused that anyone could find his views on this topic quoteworthy.
Although, in Feynman's defence, practically no-one that he met in his life was his intellectual equal, man or woman... I think it's just that he was more willing to actually say that for women, whereas he obviously felt a social need to keep that thought to himself when it concerned men.
I think that "math is what it is" is a false statement, at least in the way you intended it. The way math is represented is not at all inherent to mathematical structure (i.e. left to right, the characters you use, etc.) and I'm sure many procedures we use to solve math equations could be done in different ways (long division vs. short division, for example).
It is possible that the way we represent math and the way we solve mathematical problems is somehow inherently more difficult for females, and that a different system might better.
But I have no idea what system that would be, and practically I don't think it's worth it.
If such a system could be created then it would be invaluable. It would help open up mathematics to literally half the population. That would help more advances to be made in mathematics, and it should be trivial to translate from one system to another once the two systems were created.
With all that said, I do not think it is true. I very much doubt anything about our approach to mathematics is inherently gender biased and as a current grad student in math I find the gender ratios in the classes I am taking are biased towards males, but only minutely. (5 males, 4 females in my Comp Func Theory class for instance, 6 males, 5 females in another I am taking).
While our representation and symbology is of our choosing, the concepts of mathematics are what they are and we must approach them on their terms if we hope to make progress.
For what it's worth, Richard encouraged his sister Joan to earn a Ph.D. in physics. She worked for years as an astrophysicist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. I had the good fortune of having Joan present at my first scientific talk way back in 1994. I was confused on one point, and she patiently explained to me how a magnetotail extending to infinity could still satisfy div B = 0.
"The charming side of Richard helped people forgive him for his uncharming characteristics. For example, in many ways Richard was a sexist. Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest "girl" and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. "Yes, it really annoys me," she said."
"On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it." That was the essence of Richard's charm.
Because I do not want his charm to detract from the rest of it. (charisma > sexism) == wrong. Also, in my opinion, it is actually a bit sad that the lady says, "oh well, it's ok to be treated that way because he's a good teacher". This is exactly the kind of compromise that victims make too often.
Bill Clinton was not even being sexist and he got tasered big time. I'm not sure why Feynman should get a pass.
The point is that he was somewhat sexist in some fairly normal ways, but at the same time he was extremely unsexist in ways that no one else was.
Other people may have been more polite than Feynman in casual situations, but when it came to serious discussion he treated women (and students) as equals better than other people.
Because I do not want his charm to detract from the rest of it. (charisma > sexism) == wrong.
I'd say that the type of (charisma > sexism) is boolean -- maybe fuzzy boolean given the fuzzy quality of the operands -- not right|wrong.
In any case you're entitled to your opinion; the problem is that you did some blatantly unfair editing there. If someone says "Steve is an asshole, but I have to admit he's a great CEO", you're not supposed to quote only the first sentence, no matter how much you think being an asshole is a bad thing.
You don't get it. You are treating the original article like a Bible. In my opinion, the original article is the one which did the blatantly unfair editing; it bended over backwards to make the man look good by sandwiching the sexism carefully between the praises.
What I did could be constituted as wrong only if I was quoting Feynman and then cut off the last part, for example.
oh well, it's ok to be treated that way because he's a good teacher
Whether you think it's sad or not, I have known people who felt exactly this way. e.g., my senior year EE lab partner was a woman who couldn't stand our Theory of Communications prof, but put up with him because he was the only person who could explain the topics in a way that made sense to her.
I'm pretty sure she wasn't alone in that sentiment. Fortunately or unfortunately, we all have to make compromises.
There's a book of Feynman's letters out now, and I felt like there was a progression from the early letters -- where a certain amount of sexism was present -- to later ones where he seemed convinced that women were the peers of men in academia.
I think it works because it takes money out of the equation.
There's a line in a song: "I've got dozens of friends and the fun never ends, that is as long as I'm buying". If the man is spending money to get her attention, how can he not feel like "she wouldn't be here if I didn't have money" and how can she not feel on some level like a commodity being purchased? Your real friends are the ones who enjoy your company without you spending money to garner their attention. It seems to me your real lovers will be much the same in that regard.
This seems to have happened in the late 1930s or the early 1940s (he says "while I was working on the bomb".)
From what I've heard, the US was very conservative at that time; girls & women in general did not have sex before marriage. And additionally was contraception widely available at that time?
The sexual revolution happened in the 60s and 70s. So, this does not make any sense.
That's just good old day syndrome. I've had some very interesting talks with older folks about this very subject. They all agree that the prevalence of sex in the culture is certainly a bit more front and center today. However, men have always been men and women have always been women.
Teen birth rates where at their highest in 40's, 50's and 60's after all. Contraception certainly has played a role in reducing that, but it does demonstrate that conservative America has always been a myth propagated by a certain sect of older conservatives.
Interesting. My talks (at least with older people who went to college) have given me quite a different perspective - where people would typically marry very young (often out of college), and no one would even think of having sex without at least being engaged.
I don't doubt the truth of this story (though there is certainly hyperbole); rather I find it hard to believe that
'sleep with' in this context actually means 'sex'. The main flags are A) Feynman is discussing with other people about it (afaik not acceptable socially then) and B) a sexual one-night stand would be even less so.
Finally I wager that the teen birth rate drop is solely due to an increase in education and contraption (and even legalized abortions). Obviously, there were some teenagers having sex in the 1940s (with a much higher liklihood of becoming pregnant right now), but, due to the risks and less acceptance than now, the rate was lower.
anecdotally, I once asked my grandfather if people didn't really have sex that much back then, or if they just didn't talk about it, and he was quick to say that people just didn't talk about it, but maybe he was biased and just getting laid a lot :)
The Manhattan Project was 1942-1945, well into the war, when condoms were fairly widely available. They only became more available after that, of course.
This story by Freedman totally goes against what I've thought US/Western attitudes towards sex were in the 40s. (I thought the US was an uber-conservative sex-only-after-marriage & sex-only-for-producing children society.)
Does anyone have any links/references to articles/papers/studies that show that the US was already laissez-faire about sex as early as the late-30s/early-40s?
Don't ever assume that the US -- or any other country -- actually practices what it preaches, especially when said country spends a lot of time preaching.
The two Kinsey Reports (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 1953) are the groundbreaking sexual studies of their time. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports
sex-only-for-producing children is a bit of a stretch. The link to Ebert's blog post above describes pre-1960s society pretty well; couples were sexual, but if they weren't married (or at least engaged), they probably weren't having sex.
Not in the slightest. At the risk of destroying my chances of ever getting into YC (hi JL, PG, RTM et al!) I had astonishingly great luck with asking attractive women if they wanted to make out with me last Spring. Seriously: "hey, let's make out!" or "would it unduly offend you if I asked you to make out with me?"
You're probably better off asking this sort of thing after conversing with them for a bit so you don't come off as a creep. As long as you've established your bona fides you won't, especially if you say it with a smile.
I think I got one rejection, and her response was more of a good natured, laughing 'that sounds fun, but i shouldn't' variety.
pursuant to the content of said wiki entry, that only works if the bird is pissed in some edinburgh pub. ahem :)
edit: ok, i finished reading the whole thing and that is absolutely hilarious. I have a friend who writes copy for those 'Learn how to train your parrot in 21 days' eBook sales websites (and makes obscene gobs of money doing it). He writes EXACTLY like this. It's uncanny.
My gorgeous female Russian biochemist friend (no, you cannot have her phone number) is currently reading this next to me and thinks it's absolutely hilarious; she says this has worked on her before.
the value in trying this and having it work is that you instantly understand just how little any of the surface bullshit matters. confidence. end of story. there is nothing else.
I'm not sure what a confident creep would be like. Confidence is confidence. A confident man knows restraint, and as long as he's good with restraint, he's not in danger of being a creep.
It is good to play with expectations, to acknowledge them without actually "acknowledging" them. A creep wouldn't have the confidence to let this play out; they have to confirm that the other person is aware of the "acknowledgment" being played out. It's like some guy saying "did you get it? Did you get the joke?" Except the creep is saying this with everything he does. His body language, tone, talking speed, and even with his language.
This may just boil down to semantics, but I would call the hypothetical "confident man" you are talking about a confident, socially skilled man.
My "confident creep" has inner confidence in his abilities (he might even think of himself as a god among men), but he cannot correctly project his confidence (though in his mind, he is projecting it correctly). He can drop any empathy and ask such a question without being nervous, but his style, dress, conversation, etc. are so awkward, it fails.
Point being: Confidence is not the only thing that matters. You actually need social skills.
The difference between a confident stud, and a confident creep, illustrated (sometimes comedy is the best way to make a point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
you'd honestly be amazed at the effectiveness of confidence for unattractive guys. also pro-tip: just because you don't consider yourself attractive doesn't mean that dressing well and taking care of yourself doesn't do wonders.
It shows that you're not a wimp and that you're willing to experiment, both good things.
And they're all human, you know. They realize that people do sexual things, even successful startup founders. And PG and JL have a baby. I'll let you draw your own conclusions based on that.
I think actually saying "unduly offend" is so quirky and strange that it won't come off as weak. It'll sound like he's having fun with it, and doesn't really care if it offends at all. In fact, he's saying he doesn't care if it offends - as long as it doesn't "unduly offend". I'm tempted to try adding "would it unduly offend you..." to a lot of things now..
Bear in mind though your asking them to make out; which is fine, something they probably already planned to do.
(as an aside your first line is bad in terms of a "shock and awe" opener. The second line is better not because of the "unduly offended" (that waters it down) but the "would you")
If you asked them to sleep with you then success rate would shoot down (guaranteed; I tried it for a while just to see)
I doubt the girls in the bar knew anything about physics, or who he was. If you try asking a stranger in an average bar who Richard Feynman is, I am predicting a bunch of blank stares and trying to guess something along the lines of "actor?"
What was the quality of the women who responded favorably to this line? :P
I think it's also worthy to note that the origin makes a huge difference. If you e.g. have an underwear model trying that line on a woman, it will no doubt succeed more often than if a stereotypical truck driver delivered it in exactly the same way.
They are NOT really responding to the line. That's the thing.
With an opener like that, what matters is attitude and confidence. If you deliver it completely normal, as if you couldn't possibly imagine it could be offensive, then most likely they will just start by laughing it off or throwing some test in your face, expecting you to fall apart.
If you show you can handle what they throw back at you, you've both demonstrated confidence, that you're the kind of guy that expects women to fall over themselves to sleep with you and so you really are honest and can say what you like, and you've made it clear to them from the start that you're after sex; you're "dangerous", not some potential guy to amuse them while they have a few drinks.
Sexual intent, confidence and the perception that you're very successful with women and don't need to by shy about what you're after means far more than looks.
Personally I'd expect that line to work better on "good quality" girls, actually. Especially pretty girls that know they look good.
If you try it on girls that don't look good enough or that seem insecure etc., you might very easily come off as thinking they're easy.
With really beautiful and/or confident girls you're more likely for them to expect guys to be shy and deferential or just plain creepy.
Of course the chance of coming off as creepy with a line like that if not delivered with the perfect attitude is pretty high.
Personally I'd expect that line to work better on "good quality" girls, actually. Especially pretty girls that know they look good.
Uh huh.
With really beautiful and/or confident girls you're more likely for them to expect guys to be shy and deferential or just plain creepy.
Of course the chance of coming off as creepy with a line like that if not delivered with the perfect attitude is pretty high.
Uh? So if a pretty girl is more used to guys being shy or creepy and you deliver the line in question, which way do you think she's more likely to interpret the approach? You then go on to say that in any case, the chances of coming off as creepy while using such a line are pretty high.
Sexual intent, confidence and the perception that you're very successful with women and don't need to by shy about what you're after means far more than looks.
Well that really depends on how ugly you are, doesn't it. :) If you're average to good looking, then yeah I can see (and have personally seen) how attitude makes a difference. If you look like you fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, then good luck with that awesome confidence you're exuding. I suspect it will be just you and your hand tonight, as a lady once sung.
Sounds to me like you're more working off how you wish things were as opposed to how they are. It seems pretty self evident in my mind that no matter how the line in question is delivered, there will be girls who respond positively and girls who do not. The point I'm trying to make is that it's more about the girl than it is the opening line. How inebriated the girl is would make a large difference to the outcome of the interaction and at the risk of repeating myself, in my experience the girls who would respond positively to that line generally are not the ones I've wanted to sleep with.
It's another thing entirely if we're talking about using this line or something similar on a woman who you've know for a while and who has had a chance to get used to your personality and sense of humour. I think there might be a far greater chance of a positive response from a "quality girl" in this case. But this isn't what we're talking about here.
In the end, I guess you can test your expectations for yourself. Let me know how it goes. :) And hey, this is HN and I have no studies or statistics I can cite to prove my point so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
>I think it's also worthy to note that the origin makes a huge difference.
See, I would have thought so too, but Ed is about 5'4", bad teeth and a heavy smoker. One thing in his favour though, he was a snappy dresser as he wore lots of designer clothing.
I honestly thought he was joking but we were hanging out in Melbourne one evening at a pub. I decided to test him out, pointed out someone and said he should pick her up. Obviously I couldn't hear what he was saying from a distance, but you could visibly see where he dropped the bombshell (the expression on her face) and he sold it like it was the most normal thing in the world.
I honestly just thought it was perhaps Ed, because one data point does not a trend make... seems it might not be so.
I wouldn't be so sure about that - the greatest womanizer I've ever known is a lanky, almost scrawny nerd with curly hair. What he lacks in looks he more than makes up in his personality - he's the life of the party, knows everything about everyone, a master socializer... etc.
He's a shoot first ask questions later sort of guy - will never betray a moment of doubt, I think that's what makes him successful at both life and women.
I'm pretty sure of it dude, looks matter, period. Although I don't think there's any denying that personality generally seems to factor more heavily in what is attractive to a woman as opposed to what is attractive to a man, Ill certainly give you that.
But as I alluded to in my previous comment, all the womenizers I have known have had more than their fair share of skanky chicks because after all was said and done, they were pretty skanky themselves. There is usually a certain type of woman who will go for "Look, girls are into honesty right? Well the truth is I have a big d!&k and want to put it in you" and I've found by and large that those aren't the most interesting kind. My strategy has been quality over quantity and it's worked out pretty well so far.
I used to think that too. Get a coach. Seriously. Whether just a friend, or someone who is paid. Doesn't need to be about "pickup" at all - just someone to push you into going up to random strangers and strike up a conversation until you're so desensitized to it you just get used to talking to anyone and saying anything you like.
You're likely to find that having a friend physically force you to take the first step will make it immensely easier, and after a while you'll hesitate less and less.
Takes practice, like anything else, especially if you've allowed yourself to build up "barriers" against it in you mind.
It sounds bizarre, but by far the best thing I ever did in this direction was to start wearing Vibram Five Fingers in public. They look like crazy monkey shoes, and initially I was mortified at drawing such attention to myself, but within a few months I had completely adjusted. Moreover, they are an incredible ice-breaker: I've had more conversations with strangers in the last 1.5 years than in the previous rest of my life combined.
a failure of a hacker who doesn't have the energy to do much of anything anymore
:( Sorry, brother.
I don't know how bad it is, but I've been in similar situations. I do know it takes a lot of energy to get going again, and that a minuscule amount of energy, every day, accumulates into progress. I wouldn't concern myself with the girls, yet.
Just out of curiosity: Is Feynman using 'sleep with' as a euphemism for sex? I'm guessing that, this story being written in the 1940s/50s, pre-sexual revolution, that it is more referring to sleeping with a some low level of intimacy.
Yes and no - in those days they had no heating in winter, so people would "sleep with" one another just to keep warm. But it was considered rude to just snuggle up without asking. Of course sometimes this lead to considerable levels of intimacy.
I imagine if the master of ceremonies gave the a physicist the same advice today (say, Brian Cox for example) I picture the guy walking around with a pimp hat etc.
Is there something sexist about getting laid, or using the phrase "getting laid"? Because I know lots of regular women who both use that term and enjoy getting laid.
This is a not a male/female thing; this is a conflict of attitudes about sex.
If someone gets bent out of shape because they hear people talking about getting laid they seriously need to grow up.
"This is a not a male/female thing; this is a conflict of attitudes about sex. If someone gets bent out of shape because they hear people talking about getting laid they seriously need to grow up. Or get laid."
The phrase is equally trashy when used by either gender. It's possible to talk about sex without sounding like a teenage boy.
And I can't understand how this advice (at least as phrased in the title) is specific to one gender.
(And if that's not your problem—why should women be more uncomfortable than men around sexual statements in general? That's almost the opposite of feminism.)
there has been a lot of focus on social dynamics and this type of stuff if it interests you, it's called pick up. for the longest time, mystery and neil strauss were the icons. i'm not sure who it is now, or if they have been replaced. i'd say the whole thing has died down since it got into mainstream television. all of those tricks don't work anymore because the girls know all about it.
if you're really looking for a bold opener, google "the apocalypse opener." this will make pitching investors a walk in the park.
Most girls still haven't heard about it or don't pick up on these things.
I actually spent last Saturday hanging out with a self-described pick up artist that mostly picks girls up during the day, in the street (he insists it's far easier than bars and clubs). The kind of stuff he pulled off right in front of me was mind blowing. At one point he literally had a girl he was talking to biting her lips and looking at him as if she was preparing to jump him then and there, and he got her to give him a neck massage right in the middle of a shop.
A lot of what he was using was routines. He'd tell a girl with a friend that she was so adorable and petite he could just pick her up and steal her away, for example.
Then he'd do it.
Without exception the girls absolutely loved it, and he'd joke with them about how her friend clearly wanted them to hook up since she didn't object when he "stole her away". In most cases their friend more or less turned into a cheerleader for him after that, and he got the girls number without fail in those cases.
Despite that, a lot of "pick up" has in any case transitioned into less stilted / scripted manipulative stuff and into "self help". E.g. companies like RSD that focus on being "natural" and improving yourself much more than routines.
I wanted to respond with a rant about how terribly degrading and insulting it is to women to classify them all as bitches, to presume a few dollars worth of drinks, in a just world, entitles one to intercourse.
And then I realized the women involved are the sort who would gladly manipulate a guy's emotions and waste his time for a few dollars in drinks.
And I realized that justice was probably being served without my intervention.
This is exactly what the fictional John Forbes Nash, Jr did in "A Beautiful Mind". Does anybody here know whether he really did, or if they got it from somewhere else (Feynman, perhaps)?
That's exaggerating quite a bit; but more importantly leaving off the other half of the equation — it's a lot easier for a woman to contract it from a man.
"Two large studies in California and Europe found a per-contact risk (meaning the risk of a man becoming infected from each instance of penile-vaginal sex) of 0.0001 (1 in 10,000) and 0.0003 (1 in 3,000)"
Didn't they already have Penicillin during WW2? I think the story must have taken place after WW2? But maybe it wasn't mass produced, military only or something.
They had it, but it wasn't mass-produced, and nearly all doses went to soldiers on the front that had suffered injuries or amputations. There wasn't enough for ordinary infections - they'd even collect the urine of soldiers being dosed so that excreted penicillin could be distilled and re-used.
I figure that the story took place either during the war or slightly after (late 1940s). Penicillin wasn't mass-produced and available to consumers until the 1950s.
If Gorgorat.com has permission to print the book, or it's now in public domain, then I'm the first to say link to that pup... but I didn't see anything on the site to say this.
I'm a bit surprised that folks who make their living creating intellectual property are so blase about this. There were more comments about the inappropriate affiliate link than the fact that the book is still in press and under copyright.
Let's not devolve into "information wants to be free" and "the world is open source", but stick to the fact that the book is not free and open source in the US legal system at this point, AFAIK. Would we be linking to a hosted full copy of PG's excellent book Hackers etc. (http://www.paulgraham.com/hackpaint.html) to highlight one of his points? Probably not.