|
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
The ladder theory says:
A guy and a girl can only be friends if one of these three conditions are present:
1. The guy is gay
2. The guy doesn't find the girl attractive
3. The guy finds the girl attractive, but is currently doing better
In all other cases, friendship won't work, as sex will always be in the way.
The OP defined the term "friendship" as a male and a female having a relationship without wanting to bang each other. Thus, when this relationship stops being or never was platonic and non-sexual because one party wants to bang the other, it can no longer be considered a friendship. How the relationship plays out in practice doesn't change that. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
The ladder theory is a funny, scientific explanation of how men and women
are attracted to each other. It also covers such topics as why women
sometimes just want to be friends but men always want sex. It is based upon
many years of sociological field testing, and was first conceptualized in
1994 in Exeter, CA by Dallas Lynn with acknowledgements to Jared Whitson for
his role in formalizing the theory.
http://www.laddertheory.com/
|
Ok, first of all, thank you guys for introducing me to this funny cynical theory, i consider it as the "find of the day" so, COR u rule!
But, where is the evidence for the "years of scientific testing and sociological field-work"? Is this ironic or there is ACTUAL data to support some of the statements of the current model? I made a search (not a very exhausting one i should say) and i stumbled upon the "ladder theory's" scientific name which is Lynn's & Whitson's "Sexual Evaluation Model"(or something?). Still, i couldn't find any journal article or study about the so-called "sexual evaluation model". Because seriously, i could see this developing into a serious model from an evolutionary-psychology perspective (!)
I have some objections though towards the current model (lol). Whilst i liked it overall, and i think it is true to a certain extend (seriously!), i think there are some problems with it and the problems arise (as with any "hard-wired" evolutionary-wanna-be theory aimed in explaining all human behaviour!) due to the fact that the model lacks some IMO crucial factors such as cogntions, experiences and society/culture. That is, it lacks the "environment" part (as well as the "interpretation" of the environment)in the "pie-chart" thing. So, i would thing that those "percentages" (deriving from...years of field study and scientific testing? where!?When!?How!?) could be true to a certain extend as the "default mode" of the human mind (in choosing partners), but can change in a dynamic way through experience and exposure to the environment and culture.
For example...
Isn't "physical attraction" more crucial than "money/power" during adolescence? I mean, from my experience, girls would't particularly search for rich boys at school right? Although i can see that they could search for "powerful boys", which could be translated to "popular" boys (in school-terms), but still, i think that "physical attraction" would be a more crucial factor than "money/power" in high-school years, suggesting that those percentages could change throughout life-time.
The "intelligence/humour/personality/whatevermental" thing is mashed into a small 10% for women. Now consider this. Young female teenagers have the "default" mode of the "sexual evaluation model" and hence they would always search for "powerful/popular/rich boys". The problem is that the majority of those girls would not be attractive enough to make it to the top ladder-positions of those boys, probably experiencing (in this way) rejection. Now, continuous rejection from those "powerful/rich/popular" boys would most probably make those specific females (i would think, the majority?) negatively conditioned to those qualities. Meaning that they could automatically learn to dislike those ones. Wouldn't that make them more oriented towards characteristics other than those? Maybe humour, or intelligence, or wit or whetever? So, wouldn't those negative experiences of the "dominant qualities" (power and physical atractiveness) shift the pie-charts toward a decrease of the percentage of those "dominant" qualities and an increase of the percentage of the 10% "mental" qualities?
Think of this imaginary experiment i just thought of (lol). Due to "Sexual evaluation hard-wiring" Julia always liked the "rich/popular/powerful" boys. Problem is that Julia is not very attractive. As a result, all those alpha males that she liked throughout the years has turned-her down, "throwing her into the abyss"(!)Julia, after a substantial amount of falls has learned to dislike those "rich/powerful" alpha males and to get attracted towards the more "mental" ones(the 10% characteristics). Now at some point in her life, Julia has the opportunity to choose between two males. The first one is a rich and powerful type of male that Julia has "learned to dislike" (have an aversion towards to) whereas the other is funny, humorous-with-great-personality-guy, the type that Julia has learned to like through the years. Now, which one would she choose? Choosing the "rich/powerful" guy would gloriosuly demonstrate the power of the "sexual evaluation model". Choosing the other guy though would gloriously disprove it, suggesting that there could be more to hardwired attractiveness towards the "rich" and "powerful". What do you think?
Last edited by PETRAN on Apr-14-2009 at 00:31
|
). i'm a lot more behaved. 
