Talk:Interpersonal attraction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 2 December 2010

Stupid links

Has anyone noticed that these links are kind of stupid? Ladder theory? Is that mainstream? It smacks of original research. Kultur 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m fairly knowledgeable in this area, e.g. I recently wrote interpersonal chemistry, interpersonal ties, and human bonding. The Project Manhattan link looks stupid, e.g. it doesn’t look like a free content website. I'll add a good book reference for now. The bulk of the article reads about right, as a starter introduction. Later: --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fastseduction.com would be a free content link that is also more generic than Project Manhattan. Mathmo ^Talk 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely some POV in that Ladder Theory article. A focal point of the theory revolves around so-called "nice guys" attempting to garner a female's attraction by appealing to her through supplicating gestures, typically through which the man appears weak, becomes a doormat, and is likely fated to stay "just friends" with the woman forever.

Reword or destroy. --Knightskye 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this article for the first time. While it is very interesting, a lot of it is extremely clumsily written. I have come across several sentences that do not scan grammatically, and in some cases the intended meaning is not even clear as a direct result of the faulty sentence structure. Also there are some references to concepts that have not previously been defined or introduced - for example 'the result' where no experiment has been introduced, and there is too much jargon that is left undefined either in this page or in another. I think this article needs some major reworking to make it read in proper English. Philip Graves (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standards??

A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do it. >.> MichaelExe (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Reference

I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. [[Special:Contributions/212.159.59.5|212.159.59.5]] ([[User talk:212.159.59.5|talk]]) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 :So do it. >.> [[User:MichaelExe|MichaelExe]] ([[User talk:MichaelExe|talk]]) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
+== Strange Reference ==
+I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.)