Quora: "How does a penniless entrepreneur attract gold diggers?"(sulemanali.com)
sulemanali.com
Quora: "How does a penniless entrepreneur attract gold diggers?"
http://sulemanali.com/blog/2010/6/4/quora-how-does-a-penniless-entrepreneur-attract-gold-diggers.html
12 comments
The flip side to that, as a person currently dissolving his marriage of 10 years, is that it's a LOT harder to find a 'loyal friend for life' than it is with some other quality you prefer. It's also easy to rationalize how _easy_ it would be to love someone _forever_ when you're in the throes of new love, and just as easy to chalk up blame when that passion dies.
I agree with the sentiment, I really do, and my (soon to be ex-) wife and I are still really good friends, but not only is 'find your best friend' not _necessarily_ a magic bullet, but it's also a lot harder to ferret out than, say, 'large breasted' or 'wealthy'.
Though, it could just be my bitterness talking. :'(
I agree with the sentiment, I really do, and my (soon to be ex-) wife and I are still really good friends, but not only is 'find your best friend' not _necessarily_ a magic bullet, but it's also a lot harder to ferret out than, say, 'large breasted' or 'wealthy'.
Though, it could just be my bitterness talking. :'(
I've come to the conclusion that if you strip things down to basic principles, a woman that is looking for a man with a nice income, is really no different than us looking for a girl with big tits or with an interest in a special that.
It's just some trait that she prefers in a partner. Every since I made this connection, I hold it less and less against women who want a man that makes a decent salary.
My gf in college broke up with me after a couple of years, and while she'll never admit it, I know it was because I wasn't on the the investment banker track or the like.
I used to have a chip on my shoulder about it, until I realized that she wanting that quality in me, was no different than the reasons I was madly in love with her.
It's just some trait that she prefers in a partner. Every since I made this connection, I hold it less and less against women who want a man that makes a decent salary.
My gf in college broke up with me after a couple of years, and while she'll never admit it, I know it was because I wasn't on the the investment banker track or the like.
I used to have a chip on my shoulder about it, until I realized that she wanting that quality in me, was no different than the reasons I was madly in love with her.
> a woman that is looking for a man with a nice income, is really no different than us looking for a girl with big tits or with an interest in a special that.
I hear this connection a lot, but I think it's a bit flawed. A person preferring a certain kind of physique or build doesn't necessarily indicate anything about his/her values. But a desire for comfort and luxury indicates a hell of a lot about a person's values.
I think more equivalent would be saying a guy who looks for a woman with large breasts is similar to a woman looking for a very tall man, and either partner looking for money/luxury/comfort/status/inheritance/titles is the same thing.
I'm a rather great admirer of the Stoic tradition, I have not so much use for luxury or comfort, and I think it's potentially corrupting. I've been with a few women who prioritize luxury and comfort and things like that, but it's clear pretty early on that they're going to be funding their own luxury and comfort, whereas I'm more Spartan and would rather enjoy nature, reading books together at a cafe, laying in bed listening to classical music, and things like that. There is no fine dining, shopping trips, or things like that with me - because frankly, I'd be miserable doing that sort of stuff and a man shouldn't be miserable with his woman.
If you're strong and set those groundrules early, you can usually have a pretty good few year run with a girl who is only mildly interested in luxury/comfort. A girl who is obsessed with it, maybe you can't get on her official boyfriend -> fiance -> husband track, but that's a good thing for the man who doesn't want to be immersed in consumerism, luxury, and comfort.
So no, I disagree with the looks/money equivalence - most people have a preference for a certain set of looks which doesn't necessarily indicate anything, but a strong desire for luxury/comfort is a big red flag to people who don't want that life - though it might be perfect for a guy who does like fine dining and luxury too.
I hear this connection a lot, but I think it's a bit flawed. A person preferring a certain kind of physique or build doesn't necessarily indicate anything about his/her values. But a desire for comfort and luxury indicates a hell of a lot about a person's values.
I think more equivalent would be saying a guy who looks for a woman with large breasts is similar to a woman looking for a very tall man, and either partner looking for money/luxury/comfort/status/inheritance/titles is the same thing.
I'm a rather great admirer of the Stoic tradition, I have not so much use for luxury or comfort, and I think it's potentially corrupting. I've been with a few women who prioritize luxury and comfort and things like that, but it's clear pretty early on that they're going to be funding their own luxury and comfort, whereas I'm more Spartan and would rather enjoy nature, reading books together at a cafe, laying in bed listening to classical music, and things like that. There is no fine dining, shopping trips, or things like that with me - because frankly, I'd be miserable doing that sort of stuff and a man shouldn't be miserable with his woman.
If you're strong and set those groundrules early, you can usually have a pretty good few year run with a girl who is only mildly interested in luxury/comfort. A girl who is obsessed with it, maybe you can't get on her official boyfriend -> fiance -> husband track, but that's a good thing for the man who doesn't want to be immersed in consumerism, luxury, and comfort.
So no, I disagree with the looks/money equivalence - most people have a preference for a certain set of looks which doesn't necessarily indicate anything, but a strong desire for luxury/comfort is a big red flag to people who don't want that life - though it might be perfect for a guy who does like fine dining and luxury too.
It's not about values, it's about reproduction.
Good looks on a gal are correlated with fertility, so a guy who marries her will have a chance at a higher reproductive success. A guy with resources can afford to take care of said children, as opposed to letting them starve to death, so she gets a higher RS as well.
Neither has anything to do with morality at all.
Good looks on a gal are correlated with fertility, so a guy who marries her will have a chance at a higher reproductive success. A guy with resources can afford to take care of said children, as opposed to letting them starve to death, so she gets a higher RS as well.
Neither has anything to do with morality at all.
Justifying behaviors with evolutionary arguments doesn't make any sense. Stealing and raping generally increase your chances of reproducing, yet they're still immoral.
I don't think seeking wealthy mates is immoral because it doesn't hurt anyone. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, good for them. If they're in it for the conspicuous consumption, I just probably wouldn't enjoy hanging out with them, let alone marrying them.
I don't think seeking wealthy mates is immoral because it doesn't hurt anyone. If someone enjoys that kind of thing, good for them. If they're in it for the conspicuous consumption, I just probably wouldn't enjoy hanging out with them, let alone marrying them.
I didn't read the parent post as justifying so much as explaining. Evolutionary or physiological explanations for behavior are useful in understanding the behavior. Some evolutionarily advantageous behaviors are morally positive, while some are morally negative (such as the examples you listed). With a proper understanding of the origins of desirable and undesirable behaviors (and, perhaps the reasons why they are considered desirable or undesirable), a society can better encourage and enforce the essential moral values that unite the society and allow it to function.
> It's not about values, it's about reproduction.
It's about values and reproduction. Humans are living things, and EVERYTHING about the behaviour of living things is about reproduction. Values, in humans, are all about reproduction, directly or indirectly.
It's about values and reproduction. Humans are living things, and EVERYTHING about the behaviour of living things is about reproduction. Values, in humans, are all about reproduction, directly or indirectly.
Men desiring attractive, fertile looking women is built-in.
Women desiring high status men is also built-in. But which women find high status (banker versus starving artist for example) depends on culture and the particular woman.
Women desiring high status men is also built-in. But which women find high status (banker versus starving artist for example) depends on culture and the particular woman.
It's different in one very important respect; most likely, you are completely willing to admit that you like big tits. As you said, your ex girlfriend would never admit she wanted a man for his bank account.
The lack of honesty is why most people don't like golddiggers.
A golddigger [1] is morally equivalent to a guy who lies to women about wanting a relationship, simply with the goal of getting into her pants. Actually she is worse, since her actions are considerably more harmful.
[1] I exclude the honest golddiggers, of which I'm sure there are a few. I've got nothing against a girl honestly trading sex for money.
The lack of honesty is why most people don't like golddiggers.
A golddigger [1] is morally equivalent to a guy who lies to women about wanting a relationship, simply with the goal of getting into her pants. Actually she is worse, since her actions are considerably more harmful.
[1] I exclude the honest golddiggers, of which I'm sure there are a few. I've got nothing against a girl honestly trading sex for money.
While I wouldn't entirely disagree with you, I think the analogy needs a little tweaking.
To my mind, it's not that the act of a girl looking for a rich guy and a guy looking for an attractive girl are the same act so much as it is that more times than not these two will find each other.
Girls whose priorities are in wealth and financial security with not end up attracting guys who are interested in relationships based off of emotional commonalities (read similar likes and values). Likewise, guys whose priorities are in finding the most attractive girl will not end up attracting girls who are interested in relationships based off of emotional commonalities.
This is essentially consistent with your analogy. The problem is that just because this is true is no reason to accept it as a healthy basis for a relationship.
To my mind, it's not that the act of a girl looking for a rich guy and a guy looking for an attractive girl are the same act so much as it is that more times than not these two will find each other.
Girls whose priorities are in wealth and financial security with not end up attracting guys who are interested in relationships based off of emotional commonalities (read similar likes and values). Likewise, guys whose priorities are in finding the most attractive girl will not end up attracting girls who are interested in relationships based off of emotional commonalities.
This is essentially consistent with your analogy. The problem is that just because this is true is no reason to accept it as a healthy basis for a relationship.
Girls whose priorities are in wealth ...[will]... not end up attracting guys who are interested in relationships based off of emotional commonalities...Likewise...
You've obviously never dated in NY.
Many women will fake whatever they need to fake to get a rich guy. I'm told many men will do more or less the same thing to sleep with a girl (or so I'm told, I've got no personal experience though).
You've obviously never dated in NY.
Many women will fake whatever they need to fake to get a rich guy. I'm told many men will do more or less the same thing to sleep with a girl (or so I'm told, I've got no personal experience though).
we are driven by evolutionary forces.
While this is true, we should never forget that we are the one animal with the capability to move beyond this. Through conscious effort, you can overcome many of the artifacts of evolution that run contrary to your happiness in the world in which we live in now. It's not easy, and it's never complete, but you can continuously improve yourself.
How long until the Matt Maroon's Overcome Evolution DVD set is released? :-)
It will come out precisely 1 month after he gets 100 people to sign up on the hypothetical teaser page committing to buy it for $20, sight unseen. Once enough signups, he can design and produce the DVD, etc. That would be the smart/lazy approach. :)
Hahaha. Classic.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Matt's point is completely correct that we can transcend our biology, but it's a MASSIVELY powerful force and constantly underestimated by people. I think people just don't like the idea that the default behavior of most people is hardwired and unpleasant.
Also, the HN crowd probably underestimates how much the average person makes knee jerk decisions based on evolutionarily-driven intuition - this community is very conscious, reflective, thinking. It's easy for people surrounded by the best, brightest, most thinking, most analyzing people to forget that the vast majority of people aren't that way.
Also, the HN crowd probably underestimates how much the average person makes knee jerk decisions based on evolutionarily-driven intuition - this community is very conscious, reflective, thinking. It's easy for people surrounded by the best, brightest, most thinking, most analyzing people to forget that the vast majority of people aren't that way.
[deleted]
We are certainly influenced by them, but we don't have to be controlled by them,
When I read the comments I can't help but feel that Hacker News is 99% male because all the comments are written from a male perspective. Not just that, they also address the community as though the entire community is male. E.g. "is really no different than us looking for a girl with big tits," "Don't think of her as a potential mate."
Does anyone know the gender ratio of HN members? I'd be curious to know if it weren't overwhelmingly male. I think we'd all be better off if we got to see both male and female perspectives.
Does anyone know the gender ratio of HN members? I'd be curious to know if it weren't overwhelmingly male. I think we'd all be better off if we got to see both male and female perspectives.
What you are describing is the concept of "Male gaze" in feminist theory. As common as this phenomenon is in general, it's especially rife in tech/geek circles in my experience.
Aren't theories supposed to be falsifiable, or does that only apply to scientific theories?
In the social sciences, the word "theory" mainly refers to philosophical discussion and political activism.
Yes, the community is overwhelmingly male.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309
Agreed. I've noticed this on other threads, thought this one will most likely put it into it's sharpest relief.
Contrast:
"There was one surprise founders mentioned that I'd forgotten about: that outside the startup world, startup founders get no respect.
...
Unfortunately this extends even to dating:
http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html
"There was one surprise founders mentioned that I'd forgotten about: that outside the startup world, startup founders get no respect.
...
Unfortunately this extends even to dating:
It surprised me that being a startup founder
does not get you more admiration from women.
http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html
It might serve as a filter to keep away all that gold-diggers.
Or it might just be the truth that there are no "gold-diggers" targeting startup founders. Certainly I've never seen it.
Don't think of her as a potential mate, think of her as a potential 50% investor in your venture. She certainly does.
a 50% non-vesting partner with an 18+ year lock-up
Then you'd better make sure her stock vests like everyone else's.
Reminds me of this: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/sex/a/gold_digger.htm
This made me feel slightly nauseated, and I'm not sure why.
Because it's incredibly misogynistic.
No it's not. It's describing a very specific situation.
She looks---really looks---at her husband and realizes that outside of his consumer marketing instincts and technical wizardry and (increasingly infrequent) write-ups in TechCrunch and VentureBeat and his nouveau confidence, he's quite boring. He was one of the guys she scrunched her nose at in high school.
She married someone she wasn't particularly interested in for what his money could buy her, and came to realize he is boring.
The story doesn't make generalizations about all women.
She looks---really looks---at her husband and realizes that outside of his consumer marketing instincts and technical wizardry and (increasingly infrequent) write-ups in TechCrunch and VentureBeat and his nouveau confidence, he's quite boring. He was one of the guys she scrunched her nose at in high school.
She married someone she wasn't particularly interested in for what his money could buy her, and came to realize he is boring.
The story doesn't make generalizations about all women.
[deleted]
I consider the narrative improbable.
[deleted]
Stock options
"TL;DR: Women need emotional stimulation"
Bingo.
Bingo.
Things change. People change: your city, your religion, your personality, your income, your health. Through each change it's nice to have someone to make the change with you. A long, successful marriage requires that the relationship be reinvented as things change. At first you are lovers discovering each other, at another time you are collaborating parents, at another time you are supporting your spouse's dreams, and at yet another time it's your turn to have your dreams supported.
If you're looking for something specific like wealth or beauty, that's fine but it would never work as a foundation for a satisfying marriage relationship. I've found the best foundation to be nurturing an unconditional love for all people, because when your spouse changes into another person you will still be able to love them.