Open main menu
Newer edit →
Talk:Guide to Social Activity/Courtship
14,855 bytes added
12 years ago
deletion discussion, keeping
==Deletion discussion (Kept, no consensus to delete)==
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. -- [[meta:User:Mattrix|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!). [[User:Sj|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 [[Getting_a_girl (for guys)/Appearance|Appearance]] and [[Getting a girl (for guys)/Dating ideas|Dating ideas]]. --[[User:Sj|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.
[[User:AlbertCahalan|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. -- [[meta:User:Mattrix|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. [[User:Jun-Dai|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. [[User:AlbertCahalan|AlbertCahalan]] 03:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*:: <[[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] 21:56, 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'''.</[[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]]>
*:: Comment: this book is not a form of pity, it is a form of "kicking them while they're down," if anything. [[User:Jun-Dai|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. [[User:AlbertCahalan|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). [[User:Jun-Dai|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. [[User:AlbertCahalan|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." [[User:Jun-Dai|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. [[User:AlbertCahalan|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. [[User:Jun-Dai|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#b:Getting a date]]. -- [[meta:User:Mattrix|mattrix]] 00:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' noticed [[meta:User:Mattrix|mattrix]] comment to Jimbo and thought I would read it and add my two cents. Seems worthy of keeping and seeing what will happen. [[User:Trödel|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. [[User:Mshonle|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) [[User:AlbertCahalan|AlbertCahalan]] 03:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*Jimbo has suggested that this book should be moved to [[w: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. [[User:AlbertCahalan|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 :)
*'''Do whatever but save a copy''' since people (like me) came to wikibooks ONLY for this book. I'm interested in what people have to say about dating and even if it isn't kept on wikibooks, I hope someone can keep a copy. Also wondering, is the other book "How to get a girl" still somewhere? I'd love to know! Please email me at email@example.com (sorry, I so rarely use wikibooks that there's nearly no chance of me receiving msgs this way.) ~~Jimmy
(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
Retrieved from "