The truth most girls wont admit but is still true? anyone else think this might be true?

The truth most girls wont admit but is still true? anyone else think this might be true? Topic: Personality test case studies
May 25, 2019 / By Jenifer
Question: First off this is not a bash on women it is merely like guys have things we wont admit we talk about when it comes to how we think about girls have this about women. No offense just what i have seen. Looks do have a lot to do with how a girls responds to you: You do not have to be the best looking guy ever but you have to have a consistent shave, hair cut, decent clothes and clean hands. You also have to work out women can be slightly out of shape and its okay but if your arms and legs are not at least toned she is going to need your personality to be sexually into you. Personality counts but not the way you think: Being nice is not the way to get a girl, being good is. Good implies at times your an *** because your human you say what you mean and mean what you say but you try your best to do what you feel is good. Women have a thing for danger: A guy can be complacent in going out to eat, playing sports and going to work and dating a girl. A girl wants more she wants excitement she wants to have thrills and most young girls bore easily. Girls like to chase: Girls may complain about not finding a good man or that they get ignored but they like chasing because it makes them feel sexually interested because when they finally do get with you its sweeter because they had to work. Girls do not like guys who are vulnerable even if its just to them: Girls i repeat girls even good ones ALWAYS TEST YOUR MANHOOD. You can date a girl for years and if you show her care for her too much she will test your boundaries just to see what you allow. GIRLS ARE JUST AS SHALLOW AS MEN IN THE BEGINING: A decent looking but too skiiny or overweight guy will not get many girls but let the overweight guy lose weight and the skinny guy bulk up and she will look at him completely differently. Women hold on to guys who are good but wont date them: Women feel safe around good men, they like good men but are not attracted to good men initially. You have to build this up. Women are attracted to money But not attracted to you BUYING THEM. Give a girl gift too soon just because you know she would like it she thinks your trying to buy her. Even the toughest girls have a feminine side. Nice guys are soft in there minds. WOMEN are just as AFraid of comittment as men but the media acts like its not the case. thanks for the answers. and i wasnt studying this was just through observation its just how my mind works i pick up on details and body cues.
Best Answer

Best Answers: The truth most girls wont admit but is still true? anyone else think this might be true?

Fidelma Fidelma | 9 days ago
You have got a lot of things right, good for you, but you are studying us to hard.....that is a turn off. Now you have all this knowledge keep it to yourself and learn from it or you will become a royal pain in the a**e! x Most girls actually do like a little vulnerability cos it makes us feel needed but what we don't like is weakness....fine line. Any girl worth knowing is not attracted to money but we are going to have babies...what we are attracted to is ambition which bring with it security for our children in the years that we have to care for them and can't provide it ourselves. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and obviously handsome guys are often self absorbed and short on conversation...unless it's about them and how good they look. A nice smile, an interesting alert pair of eyes and good conversation are more important. Guys that take care of themselves are attractive - guys obsessed with themselves are NOT. No girl wants to be with a guy who is too interested in how he's looking, clean, casual and sweetly messy is a very sexy look.
👍 166 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? The truth most girls wont admit but is still true? anyone else think this might be true? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Personality test case studies

Fidelma Originally Answered: True or False, can an Employer command an employee to never admit fault?
Admitting fault does not automatically place a driver at fault for the accident. Liability is determined by the claims adjuster in accordance to that states laws. This is done by taking statements from all parties involved and 3rd party witnesses (not passengers in any vehicle involved) as well as the police report and any evidence from the scene. If you were driving a company vehicle and were at fault for an accident whether or not there was an admission of fault the companies insurance company is responsible for any physical or bodily damages up to the limits they hold. After that the driver and company can be held directly responsible and yes any admission of fault can be used in a court of law regardless of the companies "policy" and no it does not make them "bullet proof"
Fidelma Originally Answered: True or False, can an Employer command an employee to never admit fault?
Wow. Interesting interpretation. The employer is not " bullet proof". If you have an accident that ends up in court, whether you admitted fault or not, doesn't mean you are innocent. The prosecutor's job is to find you guilty no matter what you said, which may affect the employer's insurance. The employer said " Don't admit fault " so that it would have to be proven that you are guilty.
Fidelma Originally Answered: True or False, can an Employer command an employee to never admit fault?
Good question.You would not believe i was just thinking the same thing a few weeks ago.But i do not think the employer can command an employee to never admit fault.

Cybill Cybill
First one- right Second- wrong third- sometimes forth- wrong fifth- sometimes sixth- sometimes seventh- sometimes eighth- wrong ninth- wrong tenth- right
👍 60 | 👎 0

Cybill Originally Answered: True science is irrefutable truth isn't it?
I think the fundamental flaw with your argument lies in this part of your post: "I can admit pure water is chemically H2O. That is irrefutably true. I can admit electrons pass from one atom to another under conduction. That is irrefutably true. I can admit that 1+1=2. That is irrefutable truth. I can admit that in DNA all the code needed to determine a person's physical characteristics are found. Irrefutable at this time." First, I'd like to point out that one of the four statements above differs importantly from the other three. The statement about math can be known to be true with certainty, because it rests on axioms. Specifically (and you'll probably only learn this when/if you start taking upper level math or computer science or logic courses in university), the math you use rests on a set of explicit, abstract assumptions. This set of assumptions creates a logical system. The truth of a statement in that system can be known, because the set of assumptions define what is true in that system. The other three statements are different. They are statements about the natural world. People discern the truth about the natural world differently than they discern the truth of abstract systems. People discern the truth about the natural world by noticing patterns in it, then devising abstract systems that explain the patterns. As people notice more and more exceptions to the patterns, they devise more complicated, or different, abstract systems to explain the natural patterns. The knowlege in your chemistry example, your physics example, and your genetics example, was developed in this way. The knowlege in these examples may or may not be refutable. If they are true, the evidence to refute them will not surface. If they are generally but not totally true, eventually some exceptions will be noticed, and those exceptions will necessitate a change in the claims that you are calling "irrefutable truth". Here is an example from the past, in the area of genetics: People noticed that children looked like their parents. Thus they devised the idea that children inherited some essence from each of their parents, and that the essences mushed together in the child. This idea predicted that, if you breed two pea plants, one with red flowers and one with white flowers, all the child plants will have pink flowers (mushing of essences). Well, a monk named Mendel tried this, with lots of pea plants. He noticed that, using lots and lots of plants, the children of a red and a white plant weren't always pink. About half were pink, but about 1/4 were red, and about 1/4 were white. From this, and from similar experiments, Mendel devised the theory of genetics which holds that we inherit particulate information from our parents, and not just essences that get mashed together. That is a simple example. If you investigate the history of chemistry, physics, or biology, you will find other examples that demonstrate how the discovery of truth works in science. By understanding that, you will see how things held as scientific fact can sometimes be refuted, and you can understand how scientific facts, even in fields like physics and chemistry, are discovered. With this background, you can begin to understand why evolution is considered scientific fact on par with the facts you mention from genetics, chemistry, etc. The short answer is that it is a formal system which explains a whole lot of evidence, like Mendel's system explains a lot of evidence, and like the structure of water consisting of two H atoms and 1 O atom explains a lot of evidence, etc. --- If you want to learn more about these subjects, read more about "the history of science", "epistemology" (this is the philosophy of knowledge, truth, and belief), and "the philosophy of science" (major scholars in the philosophy of science include Karl Popper and Thoman Kuhn). If you want to learn more about evolution in particular, I'd suggest Richard Dawkins' book _The Blind Watchmaker_.
Cybill Originally Answered: True science is irrefutable truth isn't it?
And religion is not truth. You've just said that Evolution is not true because you believe there is no proof. You then argue that there is a God and it is the Christian God because the Bible says so. The Bible, of course, being more valid than Darwin? Applying your razor sharp analysis of Evolution to religion simply "proves" that Christianity is wrong. Are you truly so dense that you cannot realize that your argument works on either? And where, pray tell, is your "evidence" of the Christian creation myth? An addendum in response to your additional comments: Evolution is not at all "faith based". It is, as all scientific theories, evidence based. The idea is that you take the evidence and develop a theory that is a result of the evidence. Religion, on the other hand, asks that you accept a story for which no evidence has been proffered, and then search for things that might prop up the mythology. It is a radically different approach. Also: I must apologize for calling you dense. I've had to view some rather disturbing victim photos recently, and I have not been quite myself. A final addendum: where did you get the idea that Evolution was faith based, or that it lacked evidence? The central problem appears to be that you don't understand what a scientific theory is and how it is different from religion. Evolution never has been and never will be a "religion": it is a scientific theory...

If you have your own answer to the question personality test case studies, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.