|Comments on Tuesday 10 February 2004:|
|An amusingly stupid idea: motorflirt.com. Make it so that scary stalkers can contact you based on your license plate! Or, on the other hand, perhaps a tremendously devious idea on the part of the people who have set it up - make it so idiots will try to contact people with an SMS based on their license plate, charge a premium SMS rate, and send them back a message that says "that person doesn't have an account, so your message wasn't delivered - thanks for the fifty cents, sucker!" or words to that effect.|
But the fun thing is the dodgy comic strip on their front page (at time of writing, anyway), which should really read more like this:
"Wow, check out that guy. Wish there was a way I could contact him."Of course, the technology has other uses than this flirting it suggests. "Is that your mobile?" "Yes - it says 'u cut me off I will kill ur ass'. I shall reply with 'haha n00b fagot'." Thus combining Road Rage and Annoying Internet Twats into one delicious ball of violence. Or so it can be hoped. [20:54]
|The stupidity (when offered the chance at sex) of the average human is entertaining, to say the least. Because you know that's what MotorFlirt is selling: sex.|
I'd go so far as to say that there are three things that sell in this world: Sex, Power, and Money. And what do you use Power and Money for? To get Sex.
So, it seems that our lives are constantly being run by the wrong head. //sigh
...how did we ever get this far?
>...how did we ever get this far?
Well, ...err, don't mean to be crude, but... errr
That's how matey. Wrong head indeed. I ask you. Shagging's lovely.
Feel more, my friend, or you will have nothing left to think about.
|There was a recent study that proved that stupidity actually does come as a direct effect of sex and/or foreplay, at least to men. They showed various men pictures of various beautiful women, and vice versa.|
Everyone was then given a choice: would they like $40 today or $60 next week? Before seeing the photos, everyone, being relatively sensible, chose the $60 next week.
However, after being given photos of attractive women, the males in the group began making the less sensible choice. The women that had been shown photos of attractive men were unaffected.
Interesting how the world spins, isn't it?
|Mm, that may well have something to do with the mating processes of old. In that men's actions preceding sex were "Flail limbs at other men, conquer, win, it doesn't matter if I get hurt!" - a thought process that intellect would probably rebel against. Whereas women had to make *decisions* about which man to mate with (based on who flailed the nicest), which requires a certain amount of thought.|
However the test you outlined doesn't so much test intelegence as impulsiveness. Impulsiveness being a trait closely related to sex. It could also be argued that both the $40-takers and the $60-takers logically decided that $60 next week was best, both were *compelled* to take $40 now, both felt it would be silly to stupidly accept $40 now, but the impulsive ones (men who's brains have put them in get-laid-mode) had a sufficient amount of impulsiveness to overide the 'fear' of feeling silly.
Either way, Ms. Spam's comments go towards explaining why people would be more gullible when exposed to sex-sells-style advertising.
My friend was so disappointed when he found his new car *didn't* come with a girly on the bonnet... *sigh*.
|It's not a very good test, since money means different things to different people; the difference between $40 and $60 is insignificant. Similarly, the difference between 40 billion and 60 billion is insignificant (in both cases there's very little you can do with one that you can't do with the other). The difference between $40000 and $60000, on the other hand, is a significant one.|
|...and, as such, the $40 might be a better option as an instant treat thing, since the $60 is barely different anyway.|
|Yeah, but most people don't realize that. So to them the diffrence *is* significant.|
I think most peoples' intelligence wouldn't take them further than a 'more' or 'less' distinction, such that, all other factors excluded, if the larger amount was considerably larger peoples' decision wouldn't be altered. It's just 'more'. Fat fucks.
Could be a misestimation of the average person's intelligence on my part.
|...not that I disagree with sum-total of what you said (Raven, or Spam).|
|Mm. Not saying either answer is wrong, of course - if the difference is significant (or if neither amount makes any difference) you might as well go for the larger - 50% interest over a week is pretty good, after all. If you have money you could spend a frivolous $40 and end up with it paid back in a week, plus interest. But students are generally completely strapped for cash, and would thus be better off with the $40. In some cases it might make the same $20 difference anyway, in late fees for bills and the like.|
|Aye, the flaw is the incalculable potential inconsistencies of test-subjects' circumstances.|
|Perhaps if it was something like $60 versus $100, it might be a better test - but then, the test itself is inherently flawed; it all depends on the psychological makeup of the individual in question. The site (whose actual address is lost to time) didn't say anything about the subjects themselves other than the fact that ten of them were male and ten were female. That leaves a fairly large margin for error; perhaps all the men, by some freak chance, were students, and the women, by another freak chance, were all sensible old ladies who actually counted the difference between $40 and $60.|
As for Digi: you have just concluded that humans themselves are inherently flawed. And yet, I find that I am not depressed in the slightest.
|Flawed? I concluded that humans are 'so-and-so', you seem to consider 'so-and-so' to be a flaw. How a flaw?|
|Or, on the original topic, one could just write their phone number on their *fucking* car.|
|Sorry, all, I'm not usually that dark. It's just something about being stuck at home with evil wicked parents who won't let you move out and hold your life over your head with it that just ruins any and all good moods.|
And it seems to me that MotorFlirt is playing off of BMW syndrome...nice car HAS to mean nice person, right? //shakes head and laughs.
|Sorry, the 'inherently flawed' thing comes from Debate team. Anything that is not uniform is considered inherently flawed etc. etc. ad nauseam. Public schooling has taken over my brain.|
Frogg: to most girls that would use things like motorflirt.com, nice car does not mean nice guy; nice car means nice wallet. However, most of us don't think that way, which is why there is still a thing as 'contented marriage'.
I suppose one could argue that it's a double standard, but the fact is that I don't know or know of a single guy that would go out with a girl based solely on her car. If it's a nice car, he generally assumes (sometimes wrongly, and I am not applying this to all that happen to be of the male persuasion) that she has expensive taste and will expect him to buy her things.
Or perhaps I'm making enormous and incorrect generalizations, not being of the male persuasion myself. This is just what my friend Zack tells me. As he is closer to the male point of view than I, I yield to his better judgement.
|Actually Spam, it can be teh complete opposite. Of course, for my experience, it's not of these new nice cars, but rather for oldies(muscles cars, hot rods, sports cars, etc.). A girl that loves these cars, owns them and keeps them up well is actually quite a thing that'll draw a guy in.|
And while they're present in my head, i just must say this...old cars rule!
|Dritex is right. Nice car, in my eyes, sometiems indicates what Spam said. Other times, its' downright SEXY.|
Just like secretary outfits and glasses... mmm..
|Christ, you sound like the guys that were in my Debate class. We had to dress up, so we looked like secretaries anyway, and about four of us had glasses.|
Needless the say, bugged the fucking shit out of me.
|On a more serious note, the OLD car thing I can understand. My friend has this great old convertible Mustang - she fixed it up on a part-time paycheck from Tony Roma's, which pissed her off when she couldn't buy the nice new engine bits she wanted for another month. Took her forever, but it was worth it - it's a great car. She gets a lot of attention that way.|
Back to the non-serious stuff - what IS it with secretaries and cars? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!
|I don't understand with cars. Nor with secretaries, per-se, but glasses are nice. Those movies that have the 'poor picked on girl' who gets transformed into a popular girl by a makeover when the popular girls make a bet (or turns out to be a princess or whatever other excuse for the transformation) always, to me, have the girl look better pre-transformation, when she generally has glasses and frizzy hair.|
Why is it better? I don't know. Much the same reason that people whose faces are melting look worse, I suppose.
|Well, for me, it's somewhat of a prop, and something to take off. In most cases, I'm more drawn to 'erotic' material (or more real cases) where there's a 'decent' amount of clothing on the lady.|
It's something for the subject to 'be' with. A not-so-good analogy of a naked women (or whatever your preffered brand of person is) in said material (though perhaps not in other scenarios), would be that of a car floating, without road, in free space. It has no raison d'etre, and of course no where to go.
Also, it's a little non-subtle. Perhaps an a-little-bit-more-good analogy would be that of a person that completes innuendo (in *your* end-o. Tee-Hee). For example, someone I used to know -
Anyone: "Ah, they're in the cupoard are they? Hmm."
Silly Person: "HAHA<\/A>/! They're shagging!"
God bless Raven's mouseovers.
I think the two (non-subtlty, and propness) probably appeal to the same part of my fancy-drive. Oh what a snob I am.
Though, I don't mean to let you all in on more than you care to know about me.
(Apologies for the recent over-posting, there's just been a lot I felt I should comment on. Do you still get emails for every post, or have you changed it, what with the amount of traffic you see now?)
|I still get emails. At least your posts aren't inane.|
|The girls from my Debate class will be pleased to hear Raven's analysis. Most of us whimper occasionally about our appearances but never find the time/motivation/desire to look like cheerleaders.|
As for Digi, well... we kind of figured that.
|The thing with cheerleaders is that they're no fun. After about ten seconds (or sooner if you're not a freshman in high school), you realize they don't have much going on upstairs.|
The secretary thing is just, well, she's sexy AND intelligent. What's wrong with that?
Oh, and it's not just secretaries. Girls in uniform are to drool over (when they're not looking).
I mean, I know lots of girls who go gaga over firefighters when they haven't even seen more than the uniform. Not quite the same for the police or CHP, but it's still there. The uniform denotes a certain dedication to a cause, and the wishful thinker always hopes that cause can either be him or include him being screwed "for the good of the cause."
...I can't believe I just said any of that. Meh. I did, and I'm sticking with it.