Forgive me...

My days have truly been busy...will update this site as soon as I have ample time.

Artist - Maroon 5
Song---- Can't Stop
Album--- It won't be soon before long



(One, two, three)

All alone in my room, think of you at a rate that is truly alarming
I keep looping my memories of you in my head, I pretend that you want me
And I fall asleep and dream of alternate realities
And I put myself at ease by pretending that she still loves me

And I can't stop thinking about you
And I can't stop thinking about you
You never call, what do I do?
And I can't stop thinking about your love

Ohh, yeah

Can't believe I could think that she would just follow me everywhere I go
I just wrestle with you in my dreams and wake up making love to a pillow
And I fall asleep and dream of alternate realities
And I put myself at ease by pretending that she still loves me

And I can't stop thinking about you
And I can't stop thinking about you
You never call, what do I do?
And I can't stop, and I can't stop

What I would give to have you look in my direction
And I'd give my life to somehow attract your attention
And I touch myself like it's somebody else
Thoughts of you are tattooed on my mind, let me show you

And I can't stop thinking about you
And I can't stop thinking about you
You'll never go, what do I do?
And I can't stop thinking about you

And I can't stop thinking about you
And I can't stop thinking about you
You'll never go, what do I do?
And I can't stop thinking about you

Artist: Justin Timberlake
Album: Futuresex / Lovesounds
Title: Lovestoned / I Think She Knows Interlude




She's freaky and she knows it
She's freaky and I like it

Listen

She grabs the yellow bottle
She likes the way it hits her lips
She gets to the bottom
It sends her on a trip so right
She might be goin' home with me tonight

She looks like a model
Except she's got a little more ass
Don't even bother
Unless you've got that thing she likes
I hope she's goin' home with me tonight

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned
Man I swear she's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

She's freaky and she knows it
She's freaky, but I like it

She shuts the room down
The way she walks and causes a fuss
The baddest in town
She's flawless like some uncut ice
I hope she's goin' home with me tonight

And all she wants is to dance
That's why you'll find her on the floor
But you don't have a chance
Unless you move the way that she likes
That's why she's goin' home with me tonight

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned
Man I swear she's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

Those flashing lights seem to cause a glare
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned from everywhere
She's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

Now dance
Little girl
You're freaky, but I like it
Hot damn!
Let me put my funk on this one time

[Instrumental break]

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned
Man I swear she's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

Those flashing lights seem to cause a glare
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned from everywhere
She's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned
Man I swear she's bad and she knows
I think that she knows

[instrumental break]

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
She's got me love stoned
I think I'm love stoned
She's got me love stoned

I think that she knows, think that she knows, oh, oh [repeat 2 more times]

Those flashing lights come from everywhere
The way they hit her I just stop and stare
I'm love stoned from everywhere and she knows
I think that she knows
Think that she knows, oh, oh

And now I walk around without a care
She's got me hooked
It just ain't fair, but I...
I'm love stoned and I could swear
That she knows
Think that she knows, oh, oh
She knows, she knows, oh, oh

A question and an answer.

Question:

I have a question. Although I hardly ever fail with women, when I'm first meeting a girl and teasing her and being cocky but funny, they respond well and seem to be interested in me.

However,when I ask for the number, lots (not necessarily most, but a good number) of girls initially say"Oh, I've lost my phone yesterday." Or, " You know what? Why don't you give me your number instead?" Or, " I don't have a cellphone actually, I'm sorry."

However, when I give a cocky response, or even if i just say "yeah right", they IMMEDIATELY concede and give me their number... and lo and behold, it works.

I'm just wondering why they make up those lies if they're going to give in INSTANTLY. I wouldn't think that this was too important if it happened once or twice, but there seems to be a trend or pattern here. What's going on?

Reply:

I'm really glad that you asked this particular question because it's hard for a lot of guys to believe that this kind of thing could be real (or at least so common).

My translation of what you just asked is: "Why do women play games when you ask for their number?"

In response to your question, I'm going to give you a two-pronged answer:

1) The psychology of what's going on here.
2) The technique: How I deal with this particular situation, and others like it.


Here's the story which has a psychology lesson to it.


There is this guy I know that had a particularly interesting technique for hiring people.

Here's what he did: After interviewing people for the position, he'd call back the one he liked BEST, and say:"I wanted to call and thank you for applying for this job, but I just don't think you're the right person for the position"... and then he'd listen.

If the person said, "OK, well thank you" he'd just hang up and call the next favorite one. On the other hand, if they said, "Wait a minute, I am the best person for the position, I'm sure of it" etc. he'd say, "Well, tell me more.Why do you think so?" I actually listened to him do this live on the speaker phone one day in his office with a woman that he had interviewed. Sure enough, when he said"Well, I just don't think you're the right person..." she answered with "Why not? I am thebest..." etc. And, sure enough, he hired her.

The point here is that in a hiring situation,there are usually many people applying. An interviewer needs to have ways of quickly filtering through and disqualifying theunacceptable candidates. And a SAVVY interviewer will have ways of quickly finding the EXCEPTIONAL candidates.

This was a great technique for doing just that.


THE TECHNIQUE

The conclusion of it is that ATTRACTIVE WOMEN ARE APPROACHED ALL THE TIME. THEY NEED QUICK, EASY WAYS TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE EITHER THE REAL DEAL OR A WUSS THAT GIVES UP AT THE FIRST SIGN OF RESISTANCE.

Hint: Polite men that say, "Oh OK, sorry for bothering you..." or "OK, here's my number, call me..." are not SEXY or ATTRACTIVE.

On the other hand, men that say (Some of my favorites): "Oh, it's OK... you don't have a phone? That's nothing to be embarrassed about" or "And you expect me to believe that?" in a cocky, funny way instantly telegraph the message: "I'm not a girly-man that gives up easily, and I see through your games. I don't buy it" are VERY ATTRACTIVE. It just says all the right things.

So, here are a few things to remember:

1) Attractive women are approached all the time by men, and are constantly being asked for their number.

2) If you were a woman who is getting asked for your phone number forty seven times a day, you'd probably make excuses yourself.

3) The excuses and "Why don't you give me yours" type responses weed out about 95% of the losers that have no spine and no persistence.

4) If you're READY for this in advance, and you KNOW what you're going to say and do when it happens, AND you don't answer with a lame, needy,wuss response, you increase your chances of getting the number DRAMATICALLY.

5) Confident, cocky, funny responses are a great way to power through these situations.

Let's face it:

Attractive women get a lot of attention. They're not looking for a guy that throws himself at her, and then gives up easily.They're looking for a guy that has all kinds of self confidence, and sees right through her games... to the point where he disarms her and walks away with the digits.

Think about it.

Interpersonal attraction.

-Interpersonal Attraction-


Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. In a colloquial sense, interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, love, dislike, or hate someone. Interpersonal attraction can be thought of as a force acting between two people tending to draw them together, and resisting their separation. According to a personality psychologists' view, interpersonal attraction is a person's qualities that tend to attract by appealing to another person's desires.

When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the attracted as well as the qualities of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy. The study of interpersonal attraction is a major area of study in social psychology. They suggest that to determine attraction, personality and situation must be taken into account. Repulsion is also a factor in the process of interpersonal attraction, one's conception of "attraction" to another can vary from extreme attraction to extreme repulsion.

Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied. The most frequently studied are:

Physical attractiveness
Proximity
Familiarity
Similarity
Reciprocal liking
Reinforcement

Misconceptions and logical fallacies pertaining to randomness.

Popular perceptions of randomness are frequently wrong, based on logical fallacies. The following is an attempt to identify the source of such fallacies and correct the logical errors.

The Gambler's Fallacy.

The gambler's fallacy is a formal fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.

The gambler's fallacy gets its name from the fact that, where the random event is the throw of a dice or the spin of a roulette wheel, gamblers will risk money on their belief in "a run of luck" or a mistaken understanding of "the law of averages". It often arises because a similarity between random processes is mistakenly interpreted as a predictive relationship between them. (For instance, two fair dice are similar in that they each have the same chances of yielding each number - but they are independent in that they do not actually influence one another.)

A more subtle version of the fallacy is that an "interesting" (non-random looking) outcome is "unlikely" (eg that a sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6" in a lottery result is less likely than any other individual outcome). Even apart from the debate about what constitutes an "interesting" result, this can be seen as a version of the gambler's fallacy because it is saying that a random event is less likely to occur if the result, taken in conjunction with recent events, will produce an "interesting" pattern.

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."

This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. This kind of logic would only work, if we had to guess all the tosses' results 'before' they are carried out. Let's say we are gambling on a HHHHH result, that is likely to constitute the significantly lesser chance to succeed.

Here are some other examples:

1.
What is the probability of flipping 21 heads in a row, with a fair coin? (Answer: 1 in 2,097,152 = approximately 0.000000477.) What is the probability of doing it, given that you have already flipped 20 heads in a row? (Answer: 0.5.)

2.
Are you more likely to win the lottery jackpot by choosing the same numbers every time or by choosing different numbers every time? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)

3.
Are you more or less likely to win the lottery jackpot by picking the numbers which won last week, or picking numbers at random? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)
(This does not mean that all possible choices of numbers within a given lottery are equally good.

While the odds of winning may be the same regardless of which numbers are chosen, the expected payout is not, because of the possibility of having to share that jackpot with other players. A rational gambler might attempt to predict other players' choices and then deliberately avoid these numbers.)




A number is "due"

This argument says that "since all numbers will eventually appear in a random selection, those that have not come up yet are 'due' and thus more likely to come up soon". This logic is only correct if applied to a system where numbers that come up are removed from the system, such as when playing cards are drawn and not returned to the deck. It's true, for example, that once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be some other card. However, if the jack is returned to the deck, and the deck is thoroughly reshuffled, there is an equal chance of drawing a jack or any other card the next time. The same truth applies to any other case where objects are selected independently and nothing is removed from the system after each event, such as a die roll, coin toss or most lottery number selection schemes. A way to look at it is to note that random processes such as throwing coins don't have memory, making it impossible for past outcomes to affect the present and future.

A number is "cursed"

This argument is almost the reverse of the above, and says that numbers which have come up less often in the past will continue to come up less often in the future. A similar "number is 'blessed'" argument might be made saying that numbers which have come up more often in the past are likely to do so in the future. This logic is only valid if the roll is somehow biased and results don't have equal probabilities — for example, with weighted dice. If we know for certain that the roll is fair, then previous events have no influence over future events.

Note that in nature, unexpected or uncertain events rarely occur with perfectly equal frequencies, so learning which events are likely to have higher probability by observing outcomes makes sense. What is fallacious is to apply this logic to systems which are specially designed so that all outcomes are equally likely — such as dice, roulette wheels, and so on.

Randomness and how it is associated with free will.(Theological Issue)

The word random is used to express lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability in non-scientific parlance. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.

The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation.

Randomness has an important place in science, philosophy, and religion.

Randomness and how it is associated with free will.(Theological Issue)

Randomness has been associated closely with the notion of free will in a number of ways. If a person has free will (as defined by incompatibilists), then his actions will be unpredictable by other people and will contain an element of irreducible indeterminacy. By religious or supernatural conceptions of incompatibilist free will, such human actions may be the only source of randomness in the universe. (According to the naturalistic conception, by contrast, incompatibilist free will arises from pre-existing indeterminacy in physical laws and is not necessarily a unique feature of humans. According to the compatibilist conception, there is no randomness and humans are merely too complex to be easily predicted).

Some theologians have attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction between an omniscient deity, or a first cause, and free will using randomness. Discordians have a strong belief in randomness and unpredictability. Buddhist philosophy states that any event is the result of previous events (karma) and as such there is no such thing as a random event nor a 'first' event.
Martin Luther, the forefather of Protestantism, believed that there was nothing random based on his understanding of the Bible. As an outcome of his understanding of randomness he strongly felt that free will was limited to low level decision making by humans. Therefore, when someone sins against another, decision making is only limited to how one responds preferably through forgiveness and loving actions. He believed based on Biblical scripture that humans cannot will themselves, faith, salvation, sanctification, or other gifts from God. Additionally, the best people could do according to his understanding was not sin but they fall short and free will cannot achieve this objective. Thus, in his view absolute free will and unbounded randomness are severely limited to the point that behaviors may even be patterned or ordered and not random. This is a point emphasized by the field of behavioral psychology.

Further inspection into the origins of Judeo/Christian religion indicates one view that there is a very strict understanding of predestination excluding any possibility of random events. At the time of Christ the Qumran, a tribe outside of Jerusalem by the Dead Sea, had scrolls that documented their very strict deterministic worldview. Elements of this worldview are found in modern Christianity. For example, the King James and NIV Bible tell humans that God knew the believers before the foundations of time, ECC 3 is about God's perfect timing, and Daniel, Ezkiel, and Revelation tell humans that the end state is already determined. Moreover, the Judeo\Christian Bible indicates that there is a purpose to everything which is found in ECC 3 also.

These notions and more in Christianity often lend to a highly deterministic worldview and that the concept of random events is not possible. Especially, if purpose is part of this universe then randomness, by definition, is not possible. This is also a foundation for Intelligent Design which is counter to Evolution that remarks the natural emerges based on random selection.

Donald Knuth, a Stanford computer scientist and Christian commentator, remarks that he finds pseudo-random numbers useful and applies them with purpose. He then extends this thought to God who may use randomness with purpose to allow free will to certain degrees. Knuth believes that God is interested in peoples decisions and limited free will allows a certain degree of decision making. Knuth, based on his understanding of quantum computing and entanglement, comments that God exerts dynamic control over the world without violating any laws of physics suggesting that what appears to be random to humans may not, in fact, be so random.

C.S. Lewis, a 20th century Christian philosopher, discussed free will at length. On the matter of human will, Lewis wrote: "God willed the free will of men and angels in spite of His knowledge that it could lead in some cases to sin and thence to suffering: i.e., He thought freedom worth creating even at that price." In his radio broadcast Lewis indicated that God "gave [humans] free will. He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love…" Lewis, believing in free will, had an indirect belief in randomness by setting up a dependency of love on free will.

Matt Ridley, a zoology doctorate and science writer, writes how humans, a paradoxical creature, can be simultaneously free-willed and motivated by instinct and culture. Ridley suggests that experience and genes have interplay. In his writings he explores DNA as a pattern makers template, not as a blueprint for life, and points to causes of free will as consequences to genetic outcomes. Ridley, in his musings, suggests that the evolutionary force he thinks shapes the contents of our genes is the Genome Organizing Device, or GOD. In Ridley's mind GOD is the pattern maker. Thus, Ridley literally defies natural selection indicating that sources of randomness include God and human decision making.

However, when we acknowledged that an Omniscient God exist, I would be right in concluding that God would indeed know our every moves and thoughts, even before it comes to our own understanding or interpretation of our very actions. The causes and reasons would be know to God beforehand. If this is indeed true, then it would be perfectly logical to conclude that free will does not exist. God knows everything ----God knows our thoughts, our deeds(the *how* and *why* we do things), knows to a degree of absolute certainty on our decisions or our reactions in every single possible scenario---- There is no free will.

We could say that if God does not literally interfere with our decisions then our free will still stands. However, I disagree with that statement. When you have an absolute certainty in predicting another individual's actions and thoughts, to you...he is no different from a robot that is already programmed. However, as long as he does not know that you are able to predict his actions and thoughts to a degree of absolute certainty, he would still consider he has free will.

I personally believe that in the eyes of God, everything is destined. But in the eyes of man, destiny is in your own hands.