From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Reply-To: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: I can't see any organization here...:-)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.034211.38757@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Aug14.231331.4309@menudo.uh.edu>  kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>
>> Remember when Larry Margolis said ...
>
>No.  :-)

Allow me to refresh your memory.


In article  <1992Aug09.184102.22827@watson.ibm.com>, you said:
> ...

Convinced yet?  :-)

>> I believe very strongly that one cannot be happy for very long
>> living a lie, that knowing exactly how the real world works and where you
>> stand with respect to it is mandatory if you're to get anywhere in it.
>
>On the other hand, taking something apart to determine how it works runs
>the risk of breaking it.  If you enjoy something, you have to balance your
>desire to dissect it against the risk of losing it by doing so.

Well, if you're good, you won't break it.  :-)

There are, of course, ways of studying the outside world that don't
require you to take something apart (physically), but they're pretty
rare.

>> Approaching a woman I find attractive without
>> knowing what I'm doing is an excellent way of getting the lesson again.
>
>There's not much to lose in that...
>
>> Before you say that there's not much to lose in that,
>
>.. *provided* you don't go too far.
>
>> consider that I managed to lose a job that way,
>
>If I recall correctly, you were told by management to stay away from her,
>and yet you persisted - entering a restricted area in the process.

I was told to stay away from the area, and presumed (I think.  It's been
quite a while) that this was to prevent disruption of the work area.  My
"time of intrusion" was such that disruption of work was not possible,
inasmuch as it was long after working hours.

But yes, I didn't follow the "letter" of the "law"...

>> This was, of course, because I didn't take the hint of disinterest
>
>It was more than a hint.  Hopefully, you've learned.

Whether something is a "hint" or more than that depends on what you know
and how you interpret things.  Given my state of knowledge at the time,
I would classify it as a "hint", though it would be much more than that
if it were to happen to me now (now that I know better :-).

So yes, I've learned.  But my point remains: whenever you don't know
what you're doing, the consequences can be severe.  That I didn't "know
better" at the time is proof that I didn't know what I was doing back
then.

What did I learn?  That trying to ask people out in the workplace is
the Wrong Answer because it can severely affect you in the work
environment.  So Don't Do That, unless you're willing to risk your
job.

>> Anyway, I learned from junior high, high school, and college that people
>> will take advantage of you if you let them.
>
>Many will.  Some will not.

You can't tell ahead of time.  Thus, the safe assumption is that they
will until you find out otherwise.

>> (for instance, I don't trust anyone to drive my car).
>
>(Me too.)
>
>> This will probably present considerable difficulty in a
>> relationship, where such trust is required.
>
>I've found that driving a stick shift tends to take care of this.  :-)

Well, I drive a stick, so this might help, so what do you do if she
likes to drive a stick too?  :-)

>> I learned that people don't like other people who are somehow different from
>> them.
>
>This is a generalization.

These are *all* generalizations.  But they seem to work quite well as
"rules of thumb".  At least, this is what *my* experience says.

>> I learned that people don't like people who are particularly smart
>
>People don't (generally) like people who try to show off how smart
>they are

Yes, clearly.  So the question is: how do you do things intelligently
without appearing to be intelligent?

That is, what's the difference (to the outside observer) between "showing
off how smart you are" and using your intelligence whenever you can?

>> and who ask lots of questions.
>
>or who pester them.

Right.  Different thing entirely, though.  I was thinking more in terms
of a classroom setting for that one.

>> I learned that people are cruel.
>
>Another generalization.

See above.

>> But worst of
>> all, I learned that people were unfathomable:  I couldn't figure them out.
>
>Maybe you need to do more studying.

Perhaps.  I *have* made some progress in this area, but it has been very
slow.  At this rate, I won't know nearly enough before I pass away.

>> So here I am today, alone as usual.  The only way I can learn things is
>> by examining my surroundings and deriving information from my observations.
>
>So everything you learned in school was in a lab; you derived nothing
>from books?

Well, yes, there is the "book" thing.  I was speaking of how I can learn
about my immediate environment.

>> That's why I can't "use the Force".  It's why I'm "cold and calculating".
>> It's why I can't read people.  It's why I can't use so much of that good
>> advice that you guys have been giving me (and why you're probably so
>> annoyed with me for saying, so often, "yes, but" :-).  It's why I *depend*
>> on being correct, and thus why I'm so concerned *about* being correct.
>
>Yes, but...  This doesn't mean you *can't* use the advice.  You might stop
>worrying about being correct and just try some of it to see what happens.
>Do the experiment and find out what the results will be.

Some of the advice given is stuff that I *have* already tried.  What
happened?  Not a bloody thing as far as I can tell.  And that's the
point: I have experience with a wide enough variety of things that I
can conclude reasonably well that much of my problem is that I *can't*
tell what's going on: I don't have the senses for it.  This has the
annoying effect of ruling out whole classes of experiments because I
have no way to collect the results.

Even so, I suppose it's worth giving the stuff a shot anyway...

>> From the point of view of a potential mate, this probably doesn't look
>> very promising.  :-(   I'm holding my own, but it's not easy.
>
>Practice makes perfect.  But finding a mate won't mean that you won't
>sometimes wind up holding your own anyway.  :-)

Well, yeah.  My point is that my financial situation rules out an entire
class of people that might otherwise be interested in me.

>> only ones that arent't is my interest in cats, but there's little to talk
>> about there,
>
>Why?  Lots of women like cats.  If you see someone interesting in a pet
>store, asking them a question about cats might be a good way to strike up
>a conversation.  (And remember - you're asking as an opener, *not* because
>you want to learn something about cats, so the question can be silly,
>trivial, or something to which you already know the answer.)

That's not what I was referring to.  I was referring to the fact that the
subject matter that would be of interest to most people on this subject
is rather sparse, i.e. not very wide or deep.

This, of course, will not be true of a cat fanatic (which I'm not).  I
doubt there are many of those out there.

Even so, what you say is a good idea.

>> and my interest in music (jazz in particular), which also
>> yields little to actually talk about.
>
>Do you ever go to jazz clubs?

I need to.  I don't know of any where the atmosphere isn't smoke-filled,
though, and I can't breathe in such an atmosphere.

>> one is into ballroom dancing, and he knows a few people,
>> but has not offered to introduce me
>
>Are you interested in meeting any of those people?  If so, are you going
>to wait for him to offer, or have you considered *asking* him to introduce
>you?

I've considered it.  And I've decided against it at the present time for
two reasons: I'm not very physically fit (which is something they
expect.  This is what my friend says about them, so it's not conjecture),
and I don't know how to dance ballroom (nor am I interested in learning,
since I've been exposed to it and didn't particularly enjoy it at the
time.  These people expect you to dance ballroom, inasmuch as it is their
primary interest.  Again, this is information from my friend, not
conjecture).

At the very least, I'll wait until I'm in good to excellent physical
condition.  God knows how long *that'll* take.  :-(

>> ... value physical condition, which for me is
>> relatively poor [6'3" tall, weigh 220 lbs. which is *not* muscle.
>
>If you wanted to, you *could* do something about that.

Yes, I could.  It would take a great deal of time, a great deal of
effort, and a great deal of money to do it right, i.e. without killing
myself in the process.  My brother's into bodybuilding, so I've done
some studying of the subject.

>> Hmm...this isn't nearly as long as I expected.  :-)
>
>Could that be part of the problem?  :-)

I don't follow...please explain.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


-- 
				Kevin Brown

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