User talk:Valoem/Ladder theory

This is a subpage of Valoem's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

LadderTheory.com is a mirror. The "official" site is http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html, but I won't bother incorporating that in the article (or rewriting the article) as long as it's listed on VfD. --cprompt 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

i see straight people[edit]

Umm, can you say heteronormative?

-I'm going to have to agree, sociological data about lesbian relationships would be very interesting to see if only to see how the dual ladder system allegedly works in that situation.

- I don't think you are going to see any sociological data about this topic period. Pure pop sociology. Rabourn (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VFD[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere on the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

from vfd

Ladder Theory: so far as I can tell, the Ladder Theory states that "Men and women have (different) criteria for ranking who they'd like to date, and they will prefer to date those who rank highest." This is so obvious, I can't see how it would rate an article. -- Khym Chanur 04:18, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Obvious theories are worth stating, to make them visible and subject to critical consideration. Obviously you've never considered a contrary theory: that men won't (except in fantasy) come near a woman who ranks above them or even equal to them; they feel more secure in having the upper hand than in making a "find". Some people find the parties they go to have lots of couples, a corner of intelligent, good-looking, successful females talking among themselves, and a corner of dumb, ugly, male losers, as this Mismatched-Ladder Theory (to make up a name) predicts. --Jerzy 15:41, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)
- Keep (reluctantly)(for now). This seems to get quite a lot of disparate googlage, and I figure there is a half-decent article in there somewhere (if only in a slashdot-troll like guise). I'd say file it on cleanup, and del if cleanup doesn't improve it. -- Finlay McWalter 04:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- keep Flamingantichimp 03:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The article needs to be rewritten, but it's valid. I wouldn't consider the Ladder Theory to have any sociological grounds, and the site is kind of offensive, but I'd still include it for the same reason we have All your base are belong to us. --cprompt 04:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Sometimes people need this kind of offensive explanation in order to understand what the writer is trying to say. AND why this site has received the attention that it has.

Claim[edit]

The article states: The theory thus provides an explanation for why men will readily sleep with an attractive female friend much more often than a woman will sleep with an attractive male friend.

Is there any evidence, preferably non- culture-specific, and allowing for differeing rates of promiscuity between the sexes, that suggests this claim is true? It has the appearance of being one of those pop-psychological castles in the air... ---- Charles Stewart 07:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---The theory is partially satire, so I think it can be taken with a grain of salt.

What about Chaos Theory applied to Ladder Theory? Obviously the Evolution of a sexual relationship/friendship is chaotic!!! :) --Kubrick 908 13:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this theory is valid. Basically, it explaines how one person could be attracted to another but the other person doesn't feel the same way; this is common in dating, and this concept is not a big deal. However, that general concept doesn't explain special circumstances: like when a male is attracted to a female but tries to become her friend because he cannot get up the nerve to express his feelings for her directly. This man hopes that being a good friend will eventually win her over, because that would work for him. This doesn't happen, and she shows no sexual interest in him what-so-ever. Ok, this theory explains why. I think the "intellectual whores" website does a great job explaining this concept and fairly places blame on both the guy and the girl, although the guy is rightfully most at fault. The guy is at fault for:

      1) Not being honest to her about his feelings
      2) Becoming "friends" with her under false pretences (he wants to be more than a friend - again, not being honest)
      3) Continuing to put himself through physical and emotional torture by not leaving the "friendship" after it's obvious that it's not going anywhere.

The girl is only at fault if she sees through the friendship facade and how this guy is torturing himself because of it, and continues to lead him on for her own selfish purposes (Hence the "ninja bitch" label). However, some may argue that she has the right to do this to that guy, because he lied to her about his intentions; and that may be just. But no-one can force anyone else to be in an unwanted relationship, and the "intellectual whore" can simply leave. Ultimately, it rests with the "intellectual whores" to take responsibility for their own decisions and for themselves.

--

"It also completely fails to account for the manipulation and power struggle between college-age males. It assumes everyone is interested only in sex and gets no pleasure out of ruining chances for others, which is often what occurs. By telling negative things about suitemates or roommates or actively trying to intervene or "swoop" on any potential dates, one can in effect "toss" other men (or women) off the ladder in an attempt to climb to the top."

There are different aspects of the proposed theory that would explain how the previously quoted material would inherently be wrong. There are many variables in the theory, but, it is under the banner of pop-psychology for a reason, and this point of view is much against the theory itself. Suggestions?

I suggest you tie this into an already completed experiment done by Russell Clark from Florida State Univ. in 1978. See attached article: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/09/would_you_go_to_bed_.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.3.235 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of this?[edit]

The article itself admits that there is no actual "theory", just a joke that later became a popular web site. Apparently it is only being kept because it shows up in google searches. So what? All that does is promote the site. Tyronen 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article begin's, it states that it is a form of pop psychology, and should be kept up because of the popularity of this "theory." There are many men out there that are curious about their concerns regarding female friends that they wish to date, and this theory is a growing phenomenon in the pop psychology that deleting it, despite having too many variables, is something that wouldn't be wise.

The Ladder theory explains, in lay-men's terms, the truth in all men and women concerning what it is they need to do in life to become a better, stronger man. There is relevance because of the truthful nature of men and woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.220.10 (talk • contribs)

The article survived an AFD on 15 May 2006 so per WP:PROD is not eligible for proposed deletion procedure. The vote was Keep on the basis of describing a pop psychology meme. I have a few additional sources to add and I intend to trim the article back to essentially "this is a pop psychology meme and it's about X, Y, and Z" instead of all the cruft that keeps getting added. (I did this with [[friend zone], which was AFD'd at the same time.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. It should be noted that there are few professional references but its theme is true to life that many people experience. Slyfoxman7 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation[edit]

On the offhand chance that someone may actually care, I would have to submit that in my experience, "pop-psychology" is a term which, when applied to this entry, is a gross understatement.

Being an unfortunate "nice guy" as it were, I one day came across the ladder theory, and read the site in it's entirety. The ideas listed in this creation so closely mirror many of the far more painful sections of my own past that I have to say this is not just "theory", it is a universal fact. The truth of the matter is that I was (unwittingly) an intellectual whore for most of the females I grew up with.

I had no interest in being an emotional crutch, and had I known the truth of the matter, I would not have tortured myself by subjecting my psyche to the lie. Had someone threw this web site at me at an age of 13 or 14, my life would have been greatly enriched, and a lot of time would not have been wasted with girls that I liked. Instead of misleading myself in the false belief that a friendship might become something more, I could have devoted far more time to much more entertaining endeavors.

This page seems to indicate that the ladder theory is nothing more than a falsehood, written as a joke. It is no falsehood, my friends. This is a truth, and any male who does not consider it's meaning, may find himself with a bitter past, mirroring my own in ways. User:CameronB 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of it being true in one's personal experience, I don't believe that either anecdotal evidence nor personal research is sufficient criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedic entry. You have my sympathies. -Tsanth 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ladder Theory is satire in part, yes; but it is far more important than just pop psychology not because just a few people are capable of critically regarding themselves, but because so many people find truth and self-improvement in it. It is closely related to things like speed seduction and alt.seduction.fast. Its usefulness is obvious (but not to those finding themselves vehemently disagreeing with the theory). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.118.16.227 (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely true[edit]

This Theory is so relevant to how sociology works at least in America, it should not be up for deletion, i can support it as being worthy of being presented here. It has been proven to me in my personal life, every time I wasn't nice, i was able to get everything. When i liked a girl, i tried to be nice, and it always backfires, nothing happens after that, even after I did get it, and became friends later, ladder theory applied also. In my opinion, guys have to get girls right away, or they lose their chance for the future. Of any theory, this one I totally support.

It is still pop psychology, as it uses little research if any to verify its claims. Testimony is not a valid means of confirmation in this case, as those who have taken Psychology classes are aware of. This article seems to exude commentary that is at the height (or lows?) of unprofessionalism, with a seldom few professionals who have to bear it for the sake of encyclopedic merit.

The fact that ladder theory was developed by layman and not academics does not invalidate it. Einstein was a patent clerk. Should we put relativity under pop-physics? Query 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

controversy section[edit]

I've restored this section that was apparently removed without consensus 3+ months ago. Although I admit it is a bit editorialised, this article definately needs a criticism/controversy section to preserve NPOV. --Krsont 20:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the section is original research. This article is criminally overrun with random observations and personal opinion one way or the other. I defended it at the last AFD, but I'm no longer certain it's salvageable (or worthy of salvage, per notability guidelines). --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more to the criticism/controversy section even though I know that it risks an WP:OR challenge. Per WP:IAR, I strongly feel that criticism is necessary here. The "theory" itself is from a completely unreliable source and is simply not taken seriously enough by academics to warrant criticism in a peer-reviewed journal or an academic manuscript; at the same time, the article is written in such as a way as to imply that this theory is from an encyclopedia-worthy source (as opposed to a random website - the archetypical unreliable source) and simply hasn't been discredited or critiqued. No encyclopedia worth the words used to write it would include a random, unscientific "theory" of gender relations (whose only claim to notability, I might add, is its status as a putative internet meme) without noting some standard bases of opposition. I don't think WP:OR is meant to allow a completely baseless "theory" that claims to be scientific (it would be a different story if LT claimed otherwise) to go unremarked upon simply because it is below the radar of reliable sources. In short, I think that an exception to WP:RS (such as this article) requires a corresponding exception to WP:OR. Coreyander (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...[edit]

So we remove "Nice Guy Syndrome", one form of pop psychology, and keep another?

Obviously - TLT (though an obvious satire) enables the self-defeating cycle of Nice Guy behavior and provides a giant internet pity party, whereas the idea of NGS brings the delusional wall crashing down. Boys club. 76.27.233.4 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely innacurate.[edit]

The current version of this article was written by someone who has never read ladder theory. It is obviously innacurate in just about every section. I started to correct it but it really needs a complete re-write. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Query (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No basis in empiricism or the scientific method[edit]

I would recommend that "folk psychology" be replaced with "pseudo-scientific," or at least some mention that the ladder "theory" has no basis in any extant scientific research. A quick search of sociological peer reviewed journals for "ladder theory" yields no results, and nowhere on the wikipedia site (nor the original sites) is there any reference to a scientific study which supports the "theory"'s claims. While the article ought to be reserved, since it has already survived AFD review on a pop-culture basis, wikipedia is not a forum to lend credence to ascientific musings, unless clearly described as such. Unless someone puts forward scientific references, I will add the appropriate language describing "ladder theory" in one week's time. "Folk psychology" might not dissuade readers from believing in the veracity of the "theory," and wikipedia's purpose is not to obfuscate. Chris kupka 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and further think this should be labeled as pseudoscience rather than folk psychology. Looking at the wiki entry for each this seems to fall more under pseudoscience than folk psychology. Folk psychology implies at least some form of scientific reasoning behind the theory. Pseudoscience simply means a theory that sounds like science, but has no empirical evidence supporting it. From what I've seen there is only anecdotal evidence of this theory therefore I would suggest making the change to the article. Unless a convincing counter-argument can be made I would heavily recommend a relabelling from folk psychology to pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.143.150 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has come up w/ any scientific references, I'm adding a line to the introduction stating that although it has many popular adherents, LT has no basis in science or research. --Chris kupka 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many find it to be descriptive, but it hasn't been studied scientifically yet. Fair enough, we could call it a hypothesis. This status might change if it attracts academic interest and research. Afalbrig 07:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can be fairly considered a hypothesis, unless 'hypothesis' is now the blanket term for any unsubstantiated claim. Unless wikipedia intends to become the depository of every unsubstantiated claim committed to a website, I have a very hard time accepting the way this article is written. Coreyander (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I saw the female 'sexual-interest' ladder being referred to as the 'good' ladder I realised that this is a huge waste of time. It's not much better than the kind of stupid theories we used to come up with at school. When did people start to take the joke seriously? --90.206.122.47 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

The general consensus of this discussion page seems to be that this page contains "original research" and as a result, I have added the Original Research template to the article. Zylox 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Would be nice to add some pictures. After I become a confirmed user I'll add some to my explanations on the ratings and ladders. Golbin 7:18, 14 July 2009 (CST)