From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 12 Aug 92 02:25:01 GMT
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...

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.

>On the surface, you can listen to someone's words, tone of voice,

I can detect these.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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?

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?


[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.

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.

>] 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.

>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.

>] Absolutely.  Indeed, the very traits that women seem to select for initially
>] are usually counterproductive in a long-term relationship, unless they are
>] held firmly in check.
>]
>] But the thing is, it doesn't matter unless you can get past the initial
>] stages.  Many, including myself, cannot, and so it makes little sense for
>] us to even concern ourselves with what is required for *maintaining* a
>] relationship when we can't even *start* one.
> 
>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).

>] Where in the country are you?  I am unable to place "du"...
> 
>"DU" is the University of Denver; I'm in Cherry Hills Village, which is
>just south of Denver.

I've got a friend who goes to University of Colorado in Boulder (indeed, I
know a couple of people who go there).  I get the impression from him that
Colorado in general is a cool place.

>] I don't deny that these things happen.  My point is that it doesn't seem
>] to happen often enough around here to make it even worth considering as
>] a possibility.
>]
>] If it *does* happen, then of course I'll deal with it.  But I can say with
>] a very high degree of confidence that it won't happen.
> 
>Well, these things happen an awful lot around here--and certainly not
>just to me (indeed, I'm probably a less frequent recipient of such
>attention than most).  I find it hard to believe that the Denver metro
>area and anyplace else in the country I happen to go to for trade shows
>and the like are isolated pockets that are the only places inhabited by
>women who will display interest in someone.

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...

>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?

Let the debate begin!  :-)

>] So...in my case, there are two possibilities for each situation I've been
>] in so far: either they were interested and I didn't pick it up, or they
>] failed to pick up my interest.
>]
>] Well, I'm more inclined to believe the former than the latter, inasmuch as
>] I *did* try to talk to these people.  I found, however, that I was unable
>] to get much of a conversation going in most cases.  In the cases where that
>] worked, I was able to make a friend.  But invariably, I came to find that
>] they had no interest in me at all, except as a friend.
>]
>] Do you detect a trend here?
> 
>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.

>] >Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I just spend time with
>] >people--and if we end up both feeling like being romantic or physical
>] >and decide to go with it, then we do.
>]
>] BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW????
> 
>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.  :-)

>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...  :-)

>] >In either case, I don't worry
>] >about it.  If you're interested in a situation turning into a romantic
>] >and/or physical one, then give it a little nudge in the direction you
>] >want--enough to let her know you're interested in more, but not so much
>] >as to be threatening--if she's interested too, she'll nudge the
>] >situation further along as well.
>]
>] How in the world is one supposed to do this?  I haven't a clue.  Subtlety
>] is completely lost on me.  I'll never see it.  You have to whap me a good
>] one in the head to get my attention with respect to such things, because
>] otherwise I won't be able to tell the difference between an interest in
>] friendship and an interest in romance.  Guess which one I'll assume if I
>] don't know one way or the other?
> 
>Well, the most important thing is that everything you do should seem
>natural and appropriate--there are moments when kissing her hand would
>be delightful, others when it would seem awkward.  

*All* such moments have thus far been awkward.

>You can hug her a
>little longer than "just friends" normally would; 

I have no idea how long this is, inasmuch as I've received and given some
rather long ones to a number of people who explicitly wanted to be "just
friends".

>] Doesn't this [not turning them down] assume that they make the moves? 
>] Sorry, but things like that don't happen around here...
> 
>Well, yes, but that happens all the time (at least in places other than
>Finland); you're not in Finland, are you?

Nope.  Houston, Texas.  Probably worse than Finland.  :-)

>Trygve


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles