From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:52:31 GMT

 
in <1992Aug12.022501.13642@nuchat.sccsi.com>
    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
 
] In article <1992Aug10.195307.3749@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
]             tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
] >in <1992Aug7.231514.17590@nuchat.sccsi.com>
] >    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
]
] [deletions]
]
] [trygve writes:]
] >Trouble is, I get the feeling that how hard you're looking is getting in
] >the way of being able to see.  You don't really need to concentrate on
] >how others feel--people seem to have a built-in degree of empathy that
] >lets them pick up on how others are feeling pretty much from birth.
]
] *I* don't have any such ability.
 
None at all?  You've never been able to tell if someone's mad at you?
If someone's had a bad day; is feeling tired, happy, unhappy, sick,
nervous, elated, or hyper?  Never gotten the impression that someone was
lying to you or found yourself inexplicably drawn more to one person
than another?
 
] >On the surface, you can listen to someone's words, tone of voice,
]
] I can detect these.
 
Good; that's a start.
 
] >body
] >position and gestures, muscular tension, eye position and motion, pupil
] >dilation, breathing patterns, and many other fairly obvious physical
] >responses;
]
] When I'm able to detect these at all, they don't tell me anything.  I have
] trouble enough concentrating on and thinking about what the other person is
] saying.
 
Well, you might want to pick up a few books on the subject of body
language.  ("Body Language" by Julius Fast comes to mind, though there
are many other good books on the subject.)
 
] >yet, if you're not blocking them, impressions of how others
] >are feeling will just wander into your mind as your subconsious
] >automatically integrates these perceptions and more and makes a guess as
] >to how the other is feeling.
]
] Sigh.  This is how most people work.  This isn't how I work.
]
] I don't notice anything except through strictly conscious channels.  It has
] *always* been that way, from birth.
 
Why do you think that is?
 
] >People tend to act on these perceptions even when they're not entirely
] >accurate--I suspect, for example, that people pick up in this manner on
] >your sense of discomfort about things romantic and interpret it as a
] >strong romantic disinterest in them and, consequently, don't approach
] >you as more than a friend.
]
] Hmm...yes, this is quite possible.  Guess I'm going to have to control my
] outward appearance more completely.
 
Or your inner attitudes....
 
] >Fortunately, there's no reason you can't start learning to pick up on
] >how others are feeling--the world provides you with a handy reference
] >called "humanity" that can be easilly located almost anywhere in the
] >world.
]
] Umm...exactly how are you supposed to use the thing you're trying to learn
] about as a reference?
 
It's sort of like learning to ride a bicycle--the only real way to learn
to ride a bicycle is to ride one; along the way, maybe you fall off a
few times and get a skinned knee or two, but that's all part of the
process.  (Just be careful not to take the analogy too literally--some
people take exception to having training wheels bolted onto their
ankles.)
 
] I observe an object, but don't know what it is.  How is observing the object
] supposed to tell me what the object is, unless I have something to compare
] my observations against?
 
You compare the object to yourself and to other known objects that you
have interacted with.  In a sense, within your universe, every object
out there can be thought of as a "black box" defined by how you and it
interact; eventually, you build models to help you predict what sorts of
output will be produced from different sorts of input, but the essential
definition is still there.
 
] [my description of how I think people select based on a "good enough"
] rule deleted]
]
] >Though I think the decision process you outline happens sometimes, I
] >don't think it's by any means the usual one.  Much more often, though
] >people usually have specifications for what a potential partner should
] >be like, they meet someone who makes their hearts go pitter-patter and,
] >regardless of his or her fit to those specifications, that's who they go
] >after.
]
] :-)  In other words, it's so irrational that one shouldn't bother to try to
] analyze it.
 
Not at all--but it's hard to find a rule that simple that fully
describes even one person's behavior, let alone one that can be
generalized to describe the entire population.
 
] I don't suppose this is what everyone has been trying to tell me all along?
]
] If it can't be analyzed, then I have *no* way to tell what I should do to
] improve my chances except for increasing my exposure.
 
Well, there's nothing wrong with increasing your exposure--especially if
you've got a nice, well-tailored trench coat--but human beings and their
behaviors certainly can be analyzed; it's just essential to remember
that they are all individuals with individual differences.
 
] >] The same goes for the guy.  He needn't be a hero type, though that would
] >] help his odds.  He just needs to be sufficiently confident, aggressive,
] >] assertive, etc., to meet whatever standard the woman he is interested in
] >] is measuring him against.
] >
] >Except that not all women, or even close to all women, are looking for
] >the confident, aggressive hero type.
]
] I wonder if we're talking about the same thing.
]
] There are conscious standards and then there are instinctive standards, and
] they're not necessarily the same thing (and they may conflict with each other).
]
] I was speaking of the instinctive standards, i.e. the standards that turn out
] to be the only ones that really matter.  The standards that determine whether
] or not the person in question finds another attractive.
 
I don't think there are any "instinctive standards" common to the
population that are not overwhelmed by individual differences.  I've yet
to meet anyone who makes one MOTAS' heart go pitter-patter who doesn't
also make another MOTAS go "eewwwwwwwww!"
 
] >Indeed, over the last few years,
] >I've met a few women who were very appealing, thoroughly compatible with
] >me, and with whom I felt a particular closeness in communication and
] >understanding--ideal romantic partners, perhaps even life partners,
] >except that they really wanted someone who was shy, unaggressive, quiet,
] >and inexperienced; wouldn't date someone physically stronger than her;
] >or something else along those lines.  People's tastes are quite varied--
] >you'll probably find as many women who are put off by any given
] >"hero-type" characteristic as there are who find it appealing.
]
] Okay.  Then tell me how many women you've run across who (a) claimed to be
] looking for someone who explicitly *lacked* self-confidence, and (b) actually
] went for such a person.
]
] People *claim* to be looking for all sorts of things.  I don't care about
] what they claim to be looking for.  I care about what they actually go for.
 
First off, very few people are going to say that they're looking for
someone lacking self-confidence, simply because that phrase has negative
connotations.  Instead, they say they're looking for someone shy,
demure, sweet, unassuming, humble, or whatever else--in which case, I've
known quite a few women who both claimed to be looking for someone with
those characteristics and who went after people like that.  Remember--
any characteristic can be described glowingly or pejoratively:  the
whether a given characteristic is good or bad depends on the one making
the judgment.
 
] >Unfortunately, this is true--yet you still have the definite advantage
] >that people's tastes are varied enough that you will find someone who is
] >selecting for the traits you have.
]
] This is possible, but it's not good enough.  I can't possible go through
] 2.5 billion people in order to find the few that may be selecting for the
] traits I have (and who have the traits I'm selecting for.  It has to work
] both ways).  It's physically impossible to do so.
]
] As a result, I *must* consider the problem of what women *generally* tend
] to select for, and tailor my approach to that.  Otherwise I'll be a long
] time waiting (as I have thus far).
 
There's also the consideration that the more mainstream you are, the
more competition you'll have.  You may have more success (even if you
appeal to a smaaller total number of MOTAS) by being less mainstream
and more distinctive.
 
] Well, I agree with this.  But the hole I'm living in (Houston) seems to be
] different, and inasmuch as there's *another* person (from Rice University,
] which is here in Houston) who seems to be having many of the same problems
] (despite the fact that he says he didn't have such problems before he moved
] here), there seems to be growing evidence that the area I live in is
] seriously lacking the kind of people you seem to find commonplace.
]
] Maybe I should move before it's too late...
 
Could be--Houston tends to be hot, muggy, and considerably more populous
than Denver; perhaps these qualities conspire to make people less fun.
 
] >But, judging from your claim not to be able to figure out what other
] >people are feeling or to differentiate romantic/affectionate behavior
] >from friendly behavior, perhaps it's happening to you all the time and
] >you just aren't noticing.
]
] Well, it's time to start the debate between you and Sheba.  See, she claims
] that I'm guaranteed to notice such things, and you're claiming that I might
] be failing to notice such things.
]
] Now, both of you can't be right.  So which one of you is?
 
Obviously, we'll just have to solve this through the time-honored
tradition of "trial by combat."
 
] Let the debate begin!  :-)
 
I'll get the Mazola.
 
] >Yep; sounds like they may be picking up on your discomfort with things
] >romantic and backing off.  Obviously, you just need to meet someone so
] >determined that she won't back off even when faced with a perceived
] >rejection from you.
]
] Such a person probably doesn't exist where I live (Bible belt and all :-(  ).
] But this remains to be seen.
 
Dunno--I've certainly met several women who were that determined in
these parts.  (Obviously you'll just need to take off your bible belt
and replace it with, say, Kama Sutra Suspenders.  (Available from MEGO
Industries.))
 
] >Well, you probably know whether or not you're interested, so the problem
] >is half solved already.  As to determining whether she's interested, you
] >can try the technique I mentioned below, you can flirt shamelessly, you
] >can make romantic suggestions in jest and see how she reacts,
]
] How do you interpret the possible reactions you get from these things
] (reactions such as them ripping my clothes off in response excluded, of
] course :-)  ?  A number of the female friends I've had like to flirt with
] people they have no interest in.  And if you flirt with them, they think
] you've figured out what's going on and that you're simply getting into the
] game for the fun of it.  As you would imagine, until you figure that out,
] it's quite frustrating.  :-)
 
Flirting per se doesn't necessarilly indicate serious interest--I
certainly flirt with people I have absolutely no intention of doing
anything more than flirt with.  However, most people, myself included,
when engaging in "harmless flirtation" will drop frequent hints that it
is only harmless; additionally, "serious flirtation" is likely to
involve a greater amount of physical contact as well as references to
things the two of you might do together in the future.  So, my advise is
to flirt primarilly for the fun of it and when you figure out that
someone else isn't just playing, then take it more seriously.
 
] >you can
] >notice whether or not she's physically dragging you to the bed or the
] >couch or if she's ripping off articles of clothing and writhing against
] >your body, moaning subtle hints like, "I want you so bad."
]
] These things I *would* notice, subtle as they may be.  :-)
]
] No doubt, these things happen to you all the time...  :-)
 
Not *all* the time--I have to get some sleep occasionally, but it's not
like we're talking about a particularly unusual event here.
 
Trygve