Talk:Guide to Social Activity/Courtship

Deletion discussion (Kept, no consensus to delete)
Keep and Edit Most of the material is indeed unvarifiable and not easily scientifically proven, however it is usefull. Many of the techniques in social research indeed is controversial. Neverthelsess keep it and rather than deleting it allow it to remain and fix itself so that the most fundamental principles can surface themselves. Original, finished work should go to Wikisource. Wikibooks is a place to develop books.

My main concern right now is that it is not presented as a book or as a guide, but more or an encyclopedia entry. To be truly usefull as a book, textbook or a guide which it claims to be, it must be writen from the perspective or "how" versus the present "what". We are not talking about what it is, we are talking about how to do it. Let's stop asking what it can do for me and start asking how I can make it better.

--Seductionreport.com 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Some parts of this book seem to be similar to the now-deleted Getting a Girl. (See /Archive). The other parts seem like a simple joke. -- mattrix 21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you were following the earlier VfD discussion, the current book grew out of that debate. Rather than fixing the old book in place, the current book(s) were created out of an NPOV'ed subset of the old content.  I was the one who NPOV'ed and moved it; I am certainly not one of the original authors, and the subject matter doesn't interest me much.  However, I think that we should be having the difficult and serious discussion about whether such a book is appropriate for Wikibooks, not whether poorly-written or highly POV content belongs here (it doesn't!).  Sj 06:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As for my take on keeping or deleting it, I think the content has the potential to be useful, neutral, and presented in the form of a textbook; I also think it could be an enjoyable read, along the lines of the many self-help books published on the subject. I have conflicting thoughts about what Wikibooks content should encompass, but my current thoughts on the matter lend themselves to a weak keep.  Pages that induced me to try to salvage the previous book were Appearance and Dating ideas.  --Sj

Keep Some people really do need all the help they can get. Maybe not you. Have some pity on fellow human beings who are struggling to satisfy one of life's most basic needs.

AlbertCahalan 22:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment To be fair, they authors seem to have tried to address the bias towards straight men by adding three other sections. It also now uses subpages so it isn't polluting the main namespace like the old one was. I'm no longer sure about this so please do not count me listing this page as a vote either way. -- mattrix 23:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm kind of curious to see where this book goes, and I'm amused by what's already in there (its predecessor, Getting a girl, was extremely funny), but I see nothing in the book so far that indicates that it's going to be more than people's random ideas and suggestions that they've thought about over the years, none of which is scientific, verifiable, and much of which is bound to be contradictory. The very nature of what has been written thus far indicates, to me, that the book has about zero chance of being useful to anybody, or worse, that anyone taking the book seriously will be as likely to be harmed by its contents as helped. Jun-Dai 21:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By that argument, the Cookbook needs to go too. The recipes are all nothing more than people's random ideas and suggestions that they've thought about over the years, none of which is scientific, verifiable, and much of which is bound to be contradictory. This "Getting a data" book would have been damn useful to me 15 years ago. Have some pity, will you? Many of your fellow humans are suffering. AlbertCahalan 03:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 *  If the book were renamed "tips on how to get a date," then sure, it would be an appropriate resource for various ideas about dating, kind of like a cookbook, or really, tips on any subject, and there would be no need for it to be scientific. Also, a recipe book is rarely contradictory: each recipe is a particular means to its own end (i.e., incapable of contradicting other recipes, because recipes by their very nature do not need to contain general principles about cooking--any such information is beyond its scope), and any internal contradictions within a recipe can quickly be spotted.  Additionally, a recipe book is also quite verifiable.  If someone follows the recipe, and gets a pile of grey goo when they were expecting an eclair, then they will know that something was either wrong with their ability to follow the instructions, or with the recipe itself.  The wiki philosophy can and will (over time) sort out any recipes that produce results that differ from the expectations set forth in the recipe.  The ideas set forth in "getting a girl/date," however, are not verifiable, and where the results differ from what is written, the error can scarcely be traced to a particular element wrong in the instructions or in the execution of the instructions.  The wiki philosophy simply doesn't work for such casual advice: we cannot asymptotically arrive at "truth," because there is no truth to arrive at--just a shitload of unverifiable conjecture.  What you would have found helpful 15 years ago could easily cause another person great distress now, and not simply because they failed to follow the clear and precise instructions.
 * In addition to these general issues, I have some problems with the specifics of how this book is being approached. To begin with, the book seems to frequently rely on the premise that a girl can be "gotten."  In many cases, a given man will be incapable of "getting" a particular girl, and following the instructions set forth will essentially further his transformation into an obsessive, determined maniac that will find himself presented with a restraining order.  Also, most principles around "getting a girl" are largely dependent on context, and yet no attempt is made to clarify this, or to establish which principles are general ones, which are applicable only to specific contexts (and to what contexts they are applicable), and which might be applicable to many, but not all contexts.  The problem here is that people are only familiar with the contexts to which they've been exposed, and are not suited for giving advice to another person in differing circumstances.
 * Consider this ridiculous piece of advice: "A girl likes to know that you would fight for her honor and to keep her safe (whether she can defend herself or not)." While this may have been useful information to a particular person in every (potential or otherwise) dating situation they've been in (though in such a case, I suspect that there are some problems with that person's analysis of those situations), there are also many scenarios in which this outmoded idea (and any behavior that follows from it) is totally inapplicable.  Yet the book presents it as a general statement, with no explication regarding what circumstances it might be true in, and with no explanation of what sort of knowledge or expertise the author has that he might be able to give such advice, and no reference to any data (solid or otherwise) that is capable of supporting this.  Any claim that the author simply "knows this to be true" is simply bullshit--a single person's experience, no matter how broad or deep, cannot establish profound knowledge of the human condition in general.  The best we could hope for is that this piece of information is based on international surveys, statistical analysis, and years of experimentation through relationship therapy--in which case this information would then provide us with certain types of contexts and scenarios for which the information is appropriate (which is certainly not all of them), and it would certainly be much more detailed.
 * That sample piece of advice is not unusual within the text of the book as it stands. The entire book is written in the same way.  My vote stands.
 * Comment: this book is not a form of pity, it is a form of "kicking them while they're down," if anything. Jun-Dai
 * I see. The problem is that the book is not politically correct. The example you present (able and willing to keep her safe) is in no way outmoded... even if many woman won't admit it to themselves. It will be outmoded perhaps some day, after about a million years of future human evolution. The premise that "getting a girl" via pursuit is possible is mostly true as well, and it is something I wish I'd understood about 15 years ago. It sure did work for my step-sister-in-law's husband, who is now married to the woman of his dreams. Tradition still works, surprisingly well in fact. AlbertCahalan 00:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not a matter of political correctness. I am not as concerned about the offensiveness of the content (as some others are) as I am the inaccuracy, invalidity, and purely speculative qualities of the information.  You have given evidence of this with your attempts to back up the information using purely information from your own life (which is necessarily incomplete data, the sort of which does not belong in this book--and if the book is to be composed entirely or even mostly of this information, then it does not belong in wikibooks). Jun-Dai 00:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no such requirement for wikibooks. The wikipedia entry for wikibooks says "manuals, and other texts", but says nothing about prohibiting the humanities. This sure counts as a manual. It also might actually get used... the idea of a wiki "book" being used to teach a serious college science course is just laughable. A guide to getting women doesn't need to be stable and well-organized over an entire semester. In other words, it's perfect for a wiki. AlbertCahalan 02:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, what is "perfect for a wiki" are books containing information that can be repeated (if it is providing instructions, as in a cookbook), verified, and improved by the community. This, on the other hand, only contains speculation and opinions that are lumped one on the other (with some of the most awful poetic phrasings), without any truth that can be arrived at.  There are some experimental ideas out there about creating fiction or art on a wiki, or other such contributional work that has no truth to arrive at, but wikibooks is not one of those projects.  The idea of a wiki "book" being used to teach a serious college science course is not at all laughable, it just happens to be something of a distant hope at this point in time.  All of the wiki projects are long-term projects, and even the most mature one: the English wikipedia, is not a terrible good reference as of yet.  All indications are that it will be in time, however--or that it will be good enough for most people, most of the time." Jun-Dai 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The guide for getting women actually does have truth that can be verified and improved upon. The methods may differ from what you are familiar with. One simple way things could work would be for people to mark tactics as they succeed or fail. Any variations caused by situation are experimental error, just as in any science. In time, each method will have a success rate associated with it, with accuracy according to how often the method was attempted. AlbertCahalan 05:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That, my friend, is a contentious and non-neutral point of view, as is everything I've read within the text about which we are arguing. Jun-Dai 20:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've asked for Jimbo Wales' opinion, as it's not in anybody's interests for him to find out about this months later and delete it. See w:User_talk:Jimbo Wales. -- mattrix 00:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep noticed mattrix comment to Jimbo and thought I would read it and add my two cents. Seems worthy of keeping and seeing what will happen. Trödel


 * Delete This is not a textbook and the "advice" is unhelpful and simplistic. I don't think any scholarship will ever make its way to this module, either. MShonle 03:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The advice is helpful, particularly regarding mindset and overcoming fear. It would be easy to improve this book. Doing so while a vote for deletion hangs over it is not exactly fun. (yeah right, people are going to contribute to something under threat of being destroyed) AlbertCahalan 03:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo has suggested that this book should be moved to Wikicities. Would the proponents of this book be happy with that as a compromise?
 * Hmmm, this is more of a textbook than the Cookbook, which really does need to move to it's own domain. So I might like the cookbook to move, pending some study of server reliability and capacity. The Getting_a_date book does really seem to belong on wikibooks, fitting in rather decently with both the stated mission and the various structural restrictions imposed by a shared wiki. The cookbook on the other hand, has outgrown a shared wiki and has no need for the proposed linearization-to-paper enhancements that this wiki might be getting. AlbertCahalan 23:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The textbook, while currently somewhat simplistic, is no worse than a lot of other books out there. If people attempt to follow the advice in there and come back with their experiences, it would improve in a controlled manner. I see nothing sacred in this subject; it is probably a craft that can be learned by a dedicated student. The argument that people will get hurt is silly: If you engage in dating (or life) you will get hurt. most likely. That is the price of the game. If you followed the advice in the book, at least you have something to blame :)

(Edit: I think many parts of the current version deals with not only dating, but with psychology (fear), health (diet) and interaction skills in general so I believe there are a lot of interesting information in it even if its not about dating.


 * Keep the most apeal of Wiki-everything comes from that it is-not-a-paper thing, simplistic no problem there are peole needing simplistic advice, other guys and gals can click throught by the time the book grows, this book can be left here, if there is any joke parts of it they can be fixed. Anyway I admit this book for me is a great way to indulge my extravert part, by examining other peoples view on this subject in every simplistic detail.The Getting a girl had many problems beyond title.Gnomz007 from Wikipedia

Deletion discussion here instead of at WB:VFD
This discussion is interesting, but I missed it, instead posting at Votes for deletion. I would think that this discussion is too biased in favor of the book, because of its location. Use the VFD page so that the entire Wikibooks community can discuss it. --Kernigh 05:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was February 2005, now it is November 2005. --Kernigh 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion from Talk:Getting a girl (for guys)
I'm confused. I read on the vote for deletion page that this book was to be deleted, yet it has not only been re-created, but has forked into 4 different books. Am I mis-understanding something here?
 * I believe you are. The book was npov'ed, content was removed, other neutral content was added, and the book was properly identified as "getting a date" for only one of the four most common sexual orientations and circumstances.  This was done after discussion with Jimbo and others involved with the previous debates.  Sj 06:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This book is good, but it's got a few bad features: It's written from the first person, it's not NPOV, it's somewhat America-centric, or at least Western-hemisphere-centric. It needs a lot of work, but it has a right to existance. The dating ideas are a good repository! --wp:is:Spm

Double Your Dating ? Why do we have that there, if we are having external links can we seperate them into commercial and non-commercial sites David DeAngelo is well known on the internet for his dating books, but I don't think this is the place for it though, does anyone agree? If we put up david's material whats to stop us putting out all the other seduction/pickup stuff that's out there ? --aUserOnline

Additions after my proximity edit
I bet those were all made by women, still mystified by what men want. I tell ya, it is that simple. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Guide to Social Activity
I have not edited every submodule, but I unilaterally decided to move Getting a date to Guide to Social Activity/Courtship. Explanation: --Kernigh 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Getting a date was nominated for cleanup, yet there was no recent work on it.
 * 2) I wanted to write Guide to Social Activity/Alcohol and decided that alcohol and courtship belong in the same book.
 * 3) Users have threatened Getting a date with deletion, despite efforts to improve it. I wanted to continue these efforts to improve it.
 * 4) Getting a date was unnecessarily divided four ways, depending on the gender of the participants. There is not much difference between a man with a woman, and a woman with a man, so I decided to combine them.
 * 5) The book contained mostly advice for dating, but I think that it should contain additional material, such as a description and history of dating.

I want to merge in Getting a boy, but Guide to Social Activity/Courtship is at votes for deletion, and Getting a boy is not a deletion candidate. --Kernigh 15:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Getting a boy is now a deletion candidate, and seems useless, I have voted to delete it and removed the proposal to merge it here.

Problems while improving the Courtship module
I am trying to fix Guide to Social Activity/Courtship (formerly Getting a date). The three major improvements are:
 * 1) Establish gender-neutrality. Some persons claim that the old version was sexist; I think that the module should be gender-neutral. The information, in most cases, is as applicable to a man and a woman as to the other three cases.
 * 2) Establish verifiable information. By finding Wikipedia or Internet links, I can use these to determine whether the usefulness of the existing content. (I have already removed some of the existing content that I expect not to try and verify.)
 * 3) Broaden scope of some modules. Some modules are doing poorly, and improvements would probably broaden their scope from courtship to social activity in general.

I have made not much actual progress for this. Most of what I tried so far was to establish gender-neutrality. In particular, sometimes I am trying to provide general information, and sometimes I am trying to write a how-to. I might need to make another module first, perhaps Guide to Social Activity/Alcohol, and use it as a module for Courtship. --Kernigh 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I miss Rock 'n roll
This dating site is too sweet and christian. It only takes in account the stereotype relationships without taking the reality into account that all people are different. There is no atention for gays and lesbians. There is no atention for the bad boys and the fact that girls tend to like bad boys. 'Showing respect for everybody you meets' sounds like bullshit to me. I don't like the rolemodels that girls should let the boys ask them out and that boys should be protective. We have just witnessed 50 years of attempts to create freedom. Must we go back to the days in which half of the population was not able to find happyness in a relationship. I think this whole guide should be nominated for deletion. (Proud to be from Holland and to be an atheist)--82.139.82.196 22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Guide to Social Activity/Courtship (formerly Getting a date) recently survived a "votes for deletion". There are several flaws with the current text, but I am very slow to fix them. I have already removed some problem sections and entire subpages, but not all of the bad parts are missing.


 * I am somewhat surprised that this text is finding readers. How are readers finding this module? I thought the only way to navigate to here was through . --Kernigh 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I found it through a Wikipedia article of the same name. All I have to say is that for something as fundamental as a relationship, it is impossible to make a gender-neutral article. I'm a very left-wing liberal, but for a topic that is the reason for gender you just cannot treat it like that. While I respect the fact that it doesn't always have to be the guy who asks the girl out or that it doesn't even have to be a guy and a girl at all, I think that you have to accept the fact that women and men interact differently and it would make more sense to have situation based guides for each that allow for the reader to be either a leader of follower. --64.148.27.99 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

?
Is this worth adding to the article? BBC: Taking the contraceptive pill appears to change women's taste in men.

Biased
Am I the only one who feels that this book is too biased towards heterosexual males? What about the rest of us? 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is biased towards adults who live in cities. ;( Icelandic Hurricane 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Poor town kids... Icelandic Hurricane 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree (probably a few years to late). This book seems to be one person's opinion passed off as researched advice, I particularly love the point about Saisburys! I really don't see how to clean this up without deleting 90% of the module.