From: dy@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Dr. Yes)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Courtship Generic Algorithms
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:55:17 GMT

Kevin Brown writes:

>It's been a while since I've posted anything, so I suppose I
>should update people on what's going on (don't run away just yet,
>okay?  :-).
>
>For those of you who don't recall, my "plan" with respect to
>finding a relationship (or, more precisely, *creating* a
>relationship) was to take a few classes on the subject, join a
>social club or two, and participate in activities involving lots
>of other single people (women in particular, of course :-).  Well,
>this is now well underway.

Sounds good.  I think there really may be a systematic way to do
it.

>A number of things came out of these classes.  The first is that
>you *never* get entirely comfortable with initiating a
>conversation with someone you don't know.  There is a good reason
>for this: when you do so, you are putting yourself on the line to
>some extent (however small). The second is that the idea that
>relationships happen when you least expect it is a *myth*.
>Relationships happen because people work to make them happen.  It
>requires cooperation, of course (it *is* a cooperative venture),
>but it *also* requires action.  While you might not expect such
>spectacular results from your efforts, you *did* put in the
>effort, and that's what makes a relationship come about.  Most
>people, when confronted with a problem on the job or in some other
>aspect of life, will take an active role in correcting the
>problem.  If you want a raise, you don't just stand around waiting
>for it to happen.  You work to *make* it happen.  Most people
>treat relationships very differently.  They leave it to chance.
>Sharyn seems to think that this is one of the primary reasons
>people have so much trouble with relationships.  She may be onto
>something.

A genuinely scientific approach!  I suspect she is right about
those two myths.  We could speculate on how those myths get
started and what functions they fulfill, but who cares?

DY:
>> I've tried several computer users societies.  All guys.

KB:
>This is true of a lot of other things as well.  While others may
>say that it really doesn't matter what environment you put
>yourself in, don't kid yourself.  The environment you're in *does*
>have an effect. Pick a good, diverse environment *and* try to
>maximize your own attractiveness level.

As a first approximation this makes common sense.  It is also in
principle empirically researchable, i.e., there is a right answer
to it.

DY:
>> I've tried several churches.  Nobody talks to you except old men...

KB:
>This seems to depend.  I'm not religious, so such an option is
>completely out for me.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the atheist
>groups are mostly male.  :-)

I'm not religious either, but if it's legitimate to fake
confidence why not religious faith as well?

DY:
>> I've tried Mensa.  Nice people but they all have lives of their own...

KB:
>Probably too formal, as well, inasmuch as the theme is effectively
>intellectual excellence.

No, they _try_ to do social things.  Somehow it doesn't work, or
at least it hasn't worked for me so far.

DY:
>> I've tried political campaigns...

KB:
>You mean political organizations?

>You *might* be able to get somewhere in such a group, i.e. one in
>which there is a focus on some sort of activity or theme.
>Unfortunately, in such a group, socializing becomes a secondary
>activity, so it's not like it's something that's encouraged.

Exactly.  Too much time focused on the task.  It's not worth
getting into (unless you believe in the cause, and that's for
another Newsgroup).

DY:
>> I've tried professional organizations.  People are afraid to get
>>    involved...

KB:
>Professional organizations?  Like what?  Please be more specific.

I really am a doctor.  I am a doctor of the mind.

DY:
>> What organizations have you joined and how did you move inside
>> them to make them work for you?
>
Josh Diamond:
>Why not get involved in something thats just fun?  Or something that
>you believe in which is important to you?  Something not related to
>work or study in any way.  A few days ago in response to the
>"Desperation" thread I wrote:
>
>> Some examples:
>> 
>>     Amature theatre/music groups.
>>     Wine tasting classes (a friend of mine had great success here).
>>     Intramural sports, sports clubs (fencing was great for me).
>>     Any type of classes outside your degree program.
>>     Local hiking club chapters (e.g. Sierra Club, Apalachian Trail Club). 

KB:
>All these are good suggestions.  But I think the ideal thing is...
>
>(drum roll)
>
>social clubs!  That is, clubs whose PRIMARY PURPOSE is social
>interaction between its members.  Clubs which go out and do a
>large variety of things, e.g. hot-air ballooning, hiking trips,
>water skiing, beachcombing, partying, etc.

You just may be right.  Again it makes common sense.  I'm going to
look into that one, too!

KB:
>I can't say yet how well this will work, because I haven't joined
>the one around here yet.  That's coming soon, and I'll keep you
>informed of how it goes.

I'm looking forward to your reports.

--
Still Using Waffle 1.64!    | Wafffle, QEdit and Webster's
                            | NewWorld -- one great menage a
                            | trois!