Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> Works Discussion >> Other Creative Works Discussion



Message

Argeus the Paladin -> Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/22/2008 3:23:02)

So I have been in the ANU for some time now, and have beefed up some knowledge. This is where my journey into the realms of microeconomics begin. And this is what I have got to show to my comrades! Please read and enjoy! (Once again I repeat, this thread is not for minors for a reason) Comments are VERY welcome!



Arthur The Brave One -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/22/2008 4:17:48)

Wow. Although I didn't completely understand everything, such as the Prisoners Dilemma, at the start, I got a very clear image of your logics through your clear, easy-followable explanation of... well... stuff.
I found only two typos! Yay!

quote:

Argeus, Gwoonjustin and Sporkgoddess (2008) has explicitly disagreed with Orochi's reasoning.

Has should be have, as Argeus, Gwoonjustin and Sporkgoddess are multiple people.

quote:

(I cannot insert the payoff martix due to a lack of computer know-how. My apology)

Even though it's an OOC note, it should still be matrix, not martix, I believe.



gwoonjustin -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/22/2008 10:27:37)

I'm cool, but if you ever do anything like this again, consult all those you want to involve and ask them if they even wish to be involved... I advice you to pm them at least about it's existence, and possibly remove it until they have allowed you to put it up, or remove their names at their request.

Typo's, etc, then my thoughts. Or I'll blend em...
quote:


Argeus, Gwoonjustin and Sporkgoddess (2008) has explicitly disagreed with Orochi's reasoning.

You're naming yourself as a source here. Very questionable...

quote:

The Game Theory here deals with a new variation of the Prisoners' Dilemma, with two players and a kingmaker.

Explain Game Theory, Prisoners' Dilemma, and kingmaker, before applying them.

quote:


The story opens as such: In a class, there are two "nerds", A and B, who, for some reasons, both pursue a single girl, D. D is a "conventional" high school girl- that means she doesn't nurture a liking for nerdy boys, but if given the right amount of flirting, could choose to go out with one. In the class, there is also a "jerk", C, who fulfills all the criteria for a "jerk" as stated in the proposition above. Naturally, as a Jerk, he is much less intelligent than A or B, but is basically a ladies' magnet. He wouldn't much care if he gets another girl to go out with him, so he would get roughly zero utility from going out with D. In other words, he would have no incentive to actively flirt D, except for fun.

/Way/ too general. There's countless of aspects you're not taking into account here. Physical appearance, the distinct person nerd A/B is... You can't just go and say A and B have exactly the same amount of chance. Nor that conventional highschool girls love "jerks". Etc. Etc. Etc.

quote:

At his own discretion, C would choose to enter the love war, just for kicks. In that case, regardless of A and B's choice, C would go out with the girl, while any of those loverboy, A and B, would FAIL the exam owing to lovesickness if they choose to fight for the lost cause.

So romantic involvements /always/ effect academic performance?

quote:

. Because, as stated above, C gets no utility from flirting and going out with D, his chance of intervening and not intervening is equal- at 50%.

If there's two girls like that, yes. If there's three, it's 33.3. If it's four, it's 25.
Assuming he will definitely want to go out with someone.

quote:


Both A and B does not know what his opponent and the bystander C is planning.

do not know

quote:


However, the Nash Equilibrium in this case is not as strong as that in the standard PD case, as there is still some incentive for either A or B to change their decision.

If you want other people than your teacher to get this, explain NE.

quote:

Given that the time is long enough, either A or B would try the Brinkmanship strategy- that is, in case both appears to go for the girl,

both appear

quote:

Because both A and B values the girl and their academic record equally,

value

quote:

Therefore, conclusively, for most of the girls classified as "normal high school girls" with a taste for "kool" boys,

cool

quote:

Even if A and B weren't homo economicus, their parents would know when to intervene, and the parents, on the contrary, are always the more rational thinkers.

All parents are rational? Parenthood triggers a rationality chemical in the brain? Again, too general.

Harshly, this essay was comic at best. You're ignoring the complexity of humanity completely. It's like you discuss a car and the only variable you take into account is the size of the rearview mirror... Or the color of the seats.
You get my point.



Argeus the Paladin -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/24/2008 19:56:42)

Thanks a lot, Gwoon, for pointing out my errors. Basically (and in a way similar to 1wing), I have a tendency to mess up my tenses when I am preoccupied with a chain of thoughts. I'd get those things done for now. But first of all...

1) In fact, there is no need for a journal writer to ask for all the cited authors' permission before citing them. There is one article by Christian Gronroos of Hanken Swedish School of Economics in which he quoted myriads of other colleagues in the Marketing trade, and I wonder if he asked any of them for permission at all. On the other hand, if I DON'T put their names there, then, according to the L&L and/or ANU plagiarism policy, I may suffer from anything ranging from a warning/ban to an academic expulsion =P.

2) Also, in the above article, Mr. Gronroos stated his own work as a source. Trust me, when I saw his name quoted in his article, I was no less surprised than you are. But then, when I asked my lecturer, it turned out that you have to quote your own work with full reference if you are to reuse your theory. Weird, huh?

3) The "disturbing language" shall be explained in the Appendix section of the article some time during today, so stay cool'bout that.

4) Okay... As for your opinion about the "oversimplification", I have to say otherwise. The reason why you say that my theory does not take many "real life" stuffs into account is true for its namesake- it is a theory, an applied case of the "Insanely hard" (Otosan, familial discussion, 20th August 2008) Game Theory. When I write this, I have stated that I am making a lot of theoretical assumption (homo economicus, ceteris paribus, among others). Because it is theoretical, for the sake of simplicity it would dash out the "sensible" idea of real life variables and still be correct.
- You can't help the generalcy, Gwoon. It's theoretical.
- Romantic relationship affecting academic performance is one assumption I make for the sake of the theory and also that supported by many parents...
- I said "parents are more rational" strictly in microeconomic sense- a person is rational, or homo economicus if his strategical choice in a game would aim towards maximizing his total earning. A parent, thusly, is rational because they always aim to maximize what they think is best for their children- in this case, academical performance. It is not because parenthood trigger a chemical reaction or anything.

5) What I mean by 50% is that, C has only two options, either to or not to choose to intervene and seek to go out with D. As there is no incentive for him to favor one over the other (i.e. he gains no utility from going out with D), his chance for each choice is exactly 50%.

6) I purposely wrote "kool" that way. Kinda a jargon in my country's youth generation... because the word looks cool.

All in all, this is a GAME THEORY ARTICLE that seeks to simplify and explain a social phenomenon by means of economic theory. Because of that, it may make a lot of assumption that is not true outside the theoretical field. But that theoretical approach holds true to most other articles on the same topic that I have seen on mtq.sagepub.com, and the nature of the science (game theory) would not allow too much for the various real-life variances that a psychologist or sociologist may take into account.

I hope you understand what I mean. Now... in for the additions.

EDIT: The additions are now done. Enjoy the glossary!




Eukara Vox -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/29/2008 11:49:25)

Darn it, I realized I did this a while back and never posted. Just left it in a Word document in my spare to be posted. My deepest apologies.

quote:

The topic of "Why girls always go out with jerk guys" (Orochi Paladin, 2008) have been
Have should be has, since you are referring to "topic" and topic is singular.

quote:

For once, it has been attracting a number of highly discontented teenagers who has not been able to find their dream lady.
The bolded "has" should be have, as teenagers is referred to and it is plural.

quote:

For once, it has been attracting a number of highly discontented teenagers who has not been able to find their dream lady. For the other, it is observed that the
The use of "For once" and "For the other" are very awkward terms to use to begin sentences. Perhaps something like: "This topic has been attracting a number of highly discontented teenagers who has not been able to find their dream lady. It is observed that the..."

Either that or just do without the "For once" and "For the other."

quote:

While in a linguistic context, this would prove to be an excellent argument, but in terms of Game Theory, for the ease of the article, the proposed definition of "jerk" is being the male counterpart of the "Popular Girl" stock character model, which reads,
This is an overly complicated sentence, which in turn requires one to many readings. You are trying to fit too much here. Splitting it up even once would make it easier on the reader.

Alrighty, your introduction is very intriguing and does in fact attract the reader. If anything, the concept behind what you are doing will be enough to get a person here. The introduction does pull a reader in, causing them to want to know how you are going to relate all this together.

My one complaint about the introduction is that you never fully tell the reader what Orochi, and the others argued. Even in this place, a very brief summary is necessary to keep the people reading. I can assume that I know what each person said, but you must give some evidence as to their arguments before moving on. To give the reader a hint as to what the arguments are before going into the actual Game stuff would be highly advantageous to you and the reader.

Continuing on...

quote:

He wouldn't much care if he gets another girl to go out with him, so he would get roughly zero utility from going out with D. In other words, he would have no incentive to actively flirt with D, except for fun.
"He wouldn't much care" is very awkward wording, in my opinion. It doesn't flow well. A suggestion could be, "It wouldn't matter if he..."

quote:

A and B is thusly faced with a choice:
"Is" should be "are" as you are referring to two people.

quote:

If they keep flirting with the girl, they would barely PASS the exam.

quote:

If either A or B flirts the girl, while the other studies, the flirter will get the girl's hand and a PASS grade, and the learner will get HD
If you are going to use HD, then after the first mention of High Distinction put (HD) for future references for the reader.

quote:

However, if both choose to flirt with the girl

quote:

Doing so, unfortunately, would make them fail at both the girl and getting a high score.


This section is quite confusing for anyone not versed in scientific journal type writing. I mean, I had no trouble with it as I spent every semester in biology writing "practice" scientific journal submissions. That being said, it does indeed sound like a journal writing. You did a good job in my opinion in this section.

One to the conclusion...
quote:

Even if A and B weren't homo economicus, their parents would know when to intervene, and the parents, on the contrary, are always the more rational thinkers.
Pulling parents in is fine, but remember that what you speak about in the conclusion must always have a link to the main discussion. So if you are going to include parents here, you must include parents in the main body or your work.

quote:

In conclusion, the answer to Orochi Paladin's question is that, being a "jerk" does not automatically make a high schooler a winner in a conflict of love, and being a nerd doesn't automatically mean failure. It is how the parties involved make use of game theory to solve the conflict that matters.
This somehow must be mentioned in the intro, though I think I already said that. The main point of a paper must be mentioned in both the intro and conclusion with sufficient detail so that the reader understand what is being explored properly and totally.

My conclusion: You took a big step posting this in L&L as it is not what we normally post in this forum. But, it was a interesting way to explain the age old question of nerd/jerk mysteries. Personally, I was not your average high school girl, so the paper made me laugh a bit. Not because of what was written, but that jerks never appealed to me. I married a nerd!

:)

Hope this helps you.



r0de0b0y -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/29/2008 13:55:44)

You just blew my mind. Only 17? We're not so far apart but you're already thinking in terms I could never understand. What exactly do you do in your spare time?

While I founded the article intwesting and thought-provoking, there's no way in hell a single theory would define the average. Schools and social structure aren't how they're shown through the media, with jocks and nerds defined clearly. There isn't a 'average standard' for students, people are unpredictable these days. Possible to be in both the chess club and football team? Not likely, but possible. All in all, I was expecting something simpler, like 'most jocks are jerks' or something



gwoonjustin -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/31/2008 10:04:55)

I must be harsh with you once more, Argeus. Harsh and persistent.

Ok, so you admit gross generalisation and simplification to the point where the theory hardly has any effect on the situation it's concerned with at all. So, now what is the use of the essay? It does not explain the dillema it's about, let alone over a feasable solution, or any new info that could be any use to anyone in a situation even remotely similar to the one stated... So again, comic at best.

Ok, so you doubt this Christian bloke asked the sources if they were willing to be mentioned. Are you sure? And even if you were, does that justify not asking it in any situation?

Edit: Also, what about jerk and nerd girls?



Argeus the Paladin -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (8/31/2008 21:14:02)

@ R0de0b0y: Well, I myself am a self-defined nerd, and my spare time is divided equally between Fire Emblem/Warcraft III and economics/history (Chinese history... check out my stuffs on my WA thread)/political science.

Yes, a single theory would NEVER define a social norm. EVER. Yet, there was an American economist who, out of sheer subject dedication, took his time and wrote a book called Freakonomics that attempted to explain a wide range of social phenomenon based on economic terms/mechanism. He even explained things like "Why do drug dealers like to stay in their mothers' house" by using the cost-benefit and low-hanging fruit principle! I am just a novice of this man, and am trying to observe it in one simpler, less professional way. (Had it been professional you would have probably believe that I eat books for breakfast)

@ Eukara: You married a nerd? So we have an outlier (Statistics term warning)! Yay!

Still, the tendency of a girl being attracted to a jerk, in numeral form, is a normally distributed function with center of 8.5 (over ten, which means HELL YES) and a tiny standard deviation, as I have observed... (Statistics terms warning!) Well, as I am no experts, this figure is NOT RELIABLE.

@ Gwoonjustin: You may try checking out the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_game]Pirate's Game[link].

Done? Okay. Now, please answer me. Does this game have any real life merit? And yet it is still a subject so studied by a good number of theorists. Why? Because that is what theorists do everyday. So yeah.

As for the citation part. Talking about the marketing professor, (Mr. Gronroos' article is what I have to write an assessment on, BTW.) I am sure he didn't ask. You only have to ask when you are reproducing the material, not quoting it. And I asked Orochi. No response- signifying that he doesn't care and/or doesn't mind.

And wait... is your final sentence a request? If yes, I'll get to work with that as soon as the exams are over. This time I'll try using...

spoiler:

Game Theory, Marketing Theory and a dash of statistics.



Everest -> RE: Why do girls always go out with jerk guys? (12/15/2009 10:59:49)

Hah, I like this story. One thing though; your prisoner's dilemma is a bit off. Specifically, the dominant strategy of either A or B would be to either flirt with the girl in the hopes the other would not, or to study for the test; the payoffs are the same.

Here's a chart: 

			Player A	
		Study		Flirt
	Study	2,2		2,2
Player B				
	Flirt	2,2		0,0


If the dominant strategy of both A and B were to go after the girl, then Study and Flirt cannot have equal utility. ;)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.125