@Cremlin: Biology/Medical Science has the highest % of females. Math, Engineering, Physics... not so much. Your sample is slightly skewed. Their may not be a lot of IT girls, but their is plenty of web and graphic designers. It's not the same, but they have significant over lap.
EDIT: I like girls who are complex without being crazy. It's a super fine line. It works out well for me sometimes and other times I've been asked to co-sign her car loan before the second date.
@Nuri: I'm not upset, Nuri and I did read the rest of the thread. I made my statement in bold to make it clear. I am not personally offended and I am not blaming you for anything. Please stop reading more into my statements than there is and assuming so much, because I am really not upset and I did read the rest of the thread. The glare was over the constant use of the one quip which is condescending. I didn't interpret any of your statements the way you are assuming. Did you read the rest of my post? I agreed with you.
Everything you are saying works on an individual basis.
I have re-read my posts and I really do not see where you are getting this from.
AD: Male seeking interesting female. Career in the sciences or IT preferred, the arts will do. Hobbies must include one of the following: Anime, video games, cars, or guns. Being interested in more than one is preferred and encouraged.
@ Rym, I take intellectual issue with you deeming certain hobbies or activities being deeper than others. Anime, podcasting, animating, reading, movies, tv, painting, gardening, child rearing, etc. can be deep or shallow depending on how the person approaches them.
I take intellectual issue with you deeming certain hobbies or activities being deeper than others.
I did not in any way imply this, and you have 100% misread my statement.
The subject matter is entirely independent of the depth. Depth of interest is nothing more than how deeply one is engaged in said hobby, regardless of what it is.
I think there is also a problem when responsibilities make it impossible to maintain the same amount of time invested in an activity and one partner is unwilling to sacrifice the time away from the hobby to take care of those responsibilities.
I think there is also a problem when responsibilities make it impossible to maintain the same amount of time invested in an activity and one partner is unwilling to sacrifice the time away from the hobby to take care of those responsibilities.
Definitely. And that boils down to honest and open communication of needs and priorities.
I think there is also a problem when responsibilities make it impossible to maintain the same amount of time invested in an activity and one partner is unwilling to sacrifice the time away from the hobby to take care of those responsibilities.
Definitely. And that boils down to honest and open communication of needs and priorities.
I think there is also a problem when responsibilities make it impossible to maintain the same amount of time invested in an activity and one partner is unwilling to sacrifice the time away from the hobby to take care of those responsibilities.
Definitely. And that boils down to honest and open communication of needs and priorities.
You should definitely engage in conversation with your co-workers to learn why they have such disfunctional relationships :-p and give advice as to how to fix the issue.
You should definitely engage in conversation with your co-workers to learn why they have such dysfunctional relationships :-p and give advice as to how to fix the issue.
You should definitely engage in conversation with your co-workers to learn why they have such disfunctional relationships :-p and give advice as to how to fix the issue.
You should definitely engage in conversation with your co-workers to learn why they have such dysfunctional relationships :-p and give advice as to how to fix the issue.
Rym: The Marriage Counselor!
Much better then the sequel, Scott Ruben: Marriage Counselor.
This isn't in defense of boring female SOs, but of my own experience in similar situations.
Sometimes when I attend a function where I end up at a table (or some kind of conversation place) with geeks, I'm afraid I might act like some of those boring women. The problem isn't that I don't understand the geekeries. The problem is that I am so interested in them, that all I want to do is sit and listen. Being at a table full of geeks means that they will be talking about all kinds of interesting things, and I really like to listen to them. If I don't know more than one of them, it can be hard for me to cut in because 1) I am shy around new people, and 2) I don't feel worthy to add to a subject I don't know much about (yet). Although for some reason if one happens to be a girl, and she happens to be sitting close to me, I am more likely to open up (although it definitely wouldn't be about weddings-maybe just about how expensive and stupid they are).
I don't feel worthy to add to a subject I don't know much about (yet).
As I said already, if you don't know enough about a subject to add to a conversation, you can always ask questions. I'm not even remotely on the same level as say, Timo when it comes to physics. Even so, I can still talk to him about that topic by asking.
I don't feel worthy to add to a subject I don't know much about (yet).
As I said already, if you don't know enough about a subject to add to a conversation, you can always ask questions. I'm not even remotely on the same level as say, Timo when it comes to physics. Even so, I can still talk to him about that topic by asking.
That's a problem I've noticed with most people in society, they're afraid to speak up or ask questions, which I wish they would do more often. If you're wrong, then it's more likely that the person you are talking to when you made said error will point out your mistake and correct you. The result is that you learned something, and that's all that really matters, not the error that you made.
EDIT: Unfortunately, most people seem to get hung up about the fact that they were wrong instead of valuing the fact that they learned something new.
I'm not even remotely on the same level as say, Timo when it comes to physics. Even so, I can still talk to him about that topic by asking.
And I shall answer, Your Lordship.
Here is a question for you, Timo, though I am not a lord and few would deem me a lady: Can you make any recommendations on introductory level reading on physics? I never took a physics class and would like to further my reading on the subject as the high school textbook I bought and read years ago seemed to barley scratch the surface of the subject matter. The closest I came to a class in physics was a class entitled Newton, Darwin, and Einstein: The Ramifications of Science on Society" - it was a social science look at hard science. I really dislike having what I perceive to be a large gap in my otherwise well rounded education.
Be fore warned, special relativity may melt your brain. It took me a while to grasp the fact the space and time are actually the same thing.
I already covered that in the high school text book. Once I read it, it seemed fairly obvious. I had read a lot of British Romantic Poetry that deals with the theory in a more abstract way, so it wasn't an entirely new concept.
I'm not even remotely on the same level as say, Timo when it comes to physics. Even so, I can still talk to him about that topic by asking.
And I shall answer, Your Lordship.
Here is a question for you, Timo, though I am not a lord and few would deem me a lady: Can you make any recommendations on introductory level reading on physics?
If I may make a suggestion, I would say the Feynman Lectures on Physics. They by my own use have been better than most texts, and cover pretty much all but the most extreme ends of Physics.
@ Shiam: Thank you! I will put them on my "must buy" list for the year.
The last I looked, they were kinda expensive. Try to find them at a library first. Be prepared for some maths.
In my experience, I have found that at least some women feign disinterest in men's hobbies in mixed company even if they would be interested in those hobbies on their own. It seems kinda passive-aggressive to me, almost as though the woman wants to knock the man down a peg or two by rolling her eyes at his hobby and calling it childish or dismissing the hobby by repeating some cliche like " . . . boys and their toys . . ."
I've been told by people who know shit that that the credibility of the information given in this video is very iffy.
Though the videos do make sense in certain ways, it does seem kind of lacking in detail. It could be that I never really studied relativity or dimensions in any of my physics classes (how that is, I don't know). I suppose it works for people who know nothing about it, but it seems too simple for me.
Can you make any recommendations on introductory level reading on physics?
The Road to Reality gives a good overview of modern physics and theaches you some of the math that you need (if you don't like math, you can simply skip those bits, the book's designed that way). The Feynman lectures are more like textbooks and very expensive, so take a good look at them before you buy. Also they are old, so while they may be pedagogically brilliant the notation and some of the subject matter is going to be outdated. The Elegant Universe is a good explanation of some if the concepts of String Theory, but it will not teach you how to do string theory (that requires a bit more reading ;-) ).
So, to summarize: The Feynman Lectures are expensive but may be what you're looking for, if you are not scared of maths, The Road to Reality is better. EDIT: That should say: ...if you're not scared of hard maths...
Idiot's Guide to Dimensions:
This video is utter, utter Randyness. Dimensions just don't work that way. EDIT: this is how dimensions work:
Comments
EDIT: I like girls who are complex without being crazy. It's a super fine line. It works out well for me sometimes and other times I've been asked to co-sign her car loan before the second date.
I'm not upset, Nuri and I did read the rest of the thread. I made my statement in bold to make it clear. I am not personally offended and I am not blaming you for anything. Please stop reading more into my statements than there is and assuming so much, because I am really not upset and I did read the rest of the thread. The glare was over the constant use of the one quip which is condescending.
I didn't interpret any of your statements the way you are assuming. Did you read the rest of my post? I agreed with you. I have re-read my posts and I really do not see where you are getting this from.
The subject matter is entirely independent of the depth. Depth of interest is nothing more than how deeply one is engaged in said hobby, regardless of what it is.
I think there is also a problem when responsibilities make it impossible to maintain the same amount of time invested in an activity and one partner is unwilling to sacrifice the time away from the hobby to take care of those responsibilities.
Sometimes when I attend a function where I end up at a table (or some kind of conversation place) with geeks, I'm afraid I might act like some of those boring women.
EDIT: Unfortunately, most people seem to get hung up about the fact that they were wrong instead of valuing the fact that they learned something new.
In my experience, I have found that at least some women feign disinterest in men's hobbies in mixed company even if they would be interested in those hobbies on their own. It seems kinda passive-aggressive to me, almost as though the woman wants to knock the man down a peg or two by rolling her eyes at his hobby and calling it childish or dismissing the hobby by repeating some cliche like " . . . boys and their toys . . ."
So, to summarize: The Feynman Lectures are expensive but may be what you're looking for, if you are not scared of maths, The Road to Reality is better.
EDIT: That should say: ...if you're not scared of hard maths... This video is utter, utter Randyness. Dimensions just don't work that way.
EDIT: this is how dimensions work: