From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:00:01 GMT

In article <9208120123.AA05443@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.233556.11758@nuchat.sccsi.com>, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>|> The net might make *excellent* hunting ground for a female, just like a CS
>|> class might.  But it makes poor hunting ground for a male, just like a CS
>|> class would.  :-)  And for the same reasons, of course: there are lots more
>|> males than females on the net, because there are lots more males than females
>|> interested in computers and other technical things, and whether this is
>|> a genetic or social result is quite irrelevent for the purposes of a
>|> suitability evaluation.
>
>I'm glad you said "might", because you've overlooked one large area: the type
>of people. The net might be a good way to meet MOTOS for women, *IF* you like
>the type(s) of people who hang out here. If you don't, then it doesn't matter
>what the ratio is, it's not good for you at all.

This is one of the reasons I said "might".  Other exceptions would be things
like the woman not having any interest in the things one finds on the net,
not liking computers enough to want to bother with the net, not trusting
the process one would go through in order to meet people on the net, not
being satisfied with the print-only communication media that is the net,
etc.

>|> is that instead of presenting (perhaps false) information, you're 
>|> limiting the signal (due to the medium).  But in both cases, you're
>|> carefully controlling the information that makes it to the other person.
>
>Why is ambiguity bad? Long ago, a part of courting behavior was flirting, where
>ambiguity and nuance was the name of the game. A person wasn't presented to you
>like an open book, but you discovered each other and how you both felt, one
>step at a time, like unwrapping a gift (or peeling an onion, if you like).
>Am I the only one who delights in the slow unfolding of a relationship, of 
>the maybes and possibles that characterize the start of one? If everything
>is right there, nothing withheld, where are the surprises of getting to know
>the object of one's affections?

It depends on what you want.  If you *enjoy* the opening of the gift, then
I agree that ambiguity is a Good Thing.  If, on the other hand, you enjoy
the gift itself much more than the opening process, then you might not like
the ambiguity.

But it's really not ambiguity I was talking about, so much as intentionally
creating an image which is at best a shadowy representation of reality.  For
instance, on a medium like the net (or any other message-based written form
of communication), I can create an image of myself which would lead the
reader to believe that I was self-confident, sophisticated, wealthy, outgoing,
caring, sensitive, strong, etc., all in one package.  All it would take is
sufficient amounts of research and a bit of careful thought.  The medium
itself would make efforts of creating such a physical illusion (e.g.,
having to go out and buy a suit, rent an expensive car, etc.) unnecessary.
Indeed, if I were careful enough, I could do so in such a way that nothing
*directly* pointed to any of those traits, but that the overall picture would
nevertheless lead the reader to believe that I had those traits.

The primary reason I could get away with that is time: I would have plenty
of time to consider my responses and the possible impact each sentence
might have.

Now, it's possible to do those things in person as well, but it's *much*
harder: you have to be able to think very well on your feet, so that you
can do all the above analysis on the fly.  Some people can do this, and
I would imagine that they do very well in the dating game.  Others, like
myself, don't think well on our feet.  We need time to sort the details
out.  People like me wouldn't be able to entice someone in that way in
person.  But on the net, where the other person is not only prevented from
reading your body language, but is also prevented from seeing you work,
the possibilities are much greater.

Now obviously, if one were to create an illusion like that on the net, and
one were to succeed in gaining the attention (if not the devotion!) of
another, there would come a time in which the two people would meet in
person.  *Then* it gets complicated.  But the illusionist has a very
considerable advantage in that situation compared to the situation where
he meets someone in person before ever interacting with them: he knows
what will be expected.  Additionally, the other person is already open in
a number of ways in which they would be closed were they to start off
meeting in person.

The disadvantage is quite clear, of course: the illusionist *will* have
the problem of meeting the expectations of the other person.  Expectations
that, if he had started off face-to-face, probably wouldn't be there.
But this is a much better situation than being out in the cold, especially
if he plays his cards right.

>Marcia Bednarcyk                                        ADDRESS: mlb@cisco.com


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com