She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not(nautil.us)
nautil.us
She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not
http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/shell-text-me-shell-text-me-not
170 comments
It is in fact an expression of power, for one.
However, for two, it is a general discontent in the options available. You are the "next best choice" or the "best available" when facing this lack of eagerness in early relationship phases. There is an element of ego preservation in this behavior. One can improve from "best available," but this comes with experience in the early phase of the relationship.
However, for two, it is a general discontent in the options available. You are the "next best choice" or the "best available" when facing this lack of eagerness in early relationship phases. There is an element of ego preservation in this behavior. One can improve from "best available," but this comes with experience in the early phase of the relationship.
OMG this is stressing me out so much. I coped with the dating game by dating men and becoming allergic to women's unreasonable expectations [1]. I was reasonably cute ("9.5/10" according to girls at uni), liked sports and programmer job, but I'm ending up unsatisfied in life. Part of it is not encountering enough girls, the other part is not knowing what to do to meet more, third part was succeeding to improve things but then being dumped abroad while still in culture shock in a not-nice-at-all break-up. Part 4 is, not recovering from that break-up, trust issues with girls, and we're 10 years later, still a wreak, while virtually quite rich from my stock options, and startup founder.
I used to go out of my way to be generous, give back to the society and be nice to people. I don't know why, I secretely hoped to get support in case of a major event. But no-one counted/counts that break-up as relevant, and the social fabric wasn't here to hug me when I needed it. Now I vote for individualism and I'm in life for money. I'm voting so far-right, I feel like Hitler.
Life isn't nice for losers, and I've lost the game. Starting as a programmer doesn't help. In 2006 when it was a mostly-male environment. Through 2012 when only women were promoted around me. Didn't help.
Has anyone here been so low? Given up so much of their values because of insatisfaction? but succeeded to improve his character later in life? Needless to say, I don't like who I am now.
[1] To be clear, I still believe in equality and I'm the (only) one trying to bring Lego and science to my goddaughter.
I used to go out of my way to be generous, give back to the society and be nice to people. I don't know why, I secretely hoped to get support in case of a major event. But no-one counted/counts that break-up as relevant, and the social fabric wasn't here to hug me when I needed it. Now I vote for individualism and I'm in life for money. I'm voting so far-right, I feel like Hitler.
Life isn't nice for losers, and I've lost the game. Starting as a programmer doesn't help. In 2006 when it was a mostly-male environment. Through 2012 when only women were promoted around me. Didn't help.
Has anyone here been so low? Given up so much of their values because of insatisfaction? but succeeded to improve his character later in life? Needless to say, I don't like who I am now.
[1] To be clear, I still believe in equality and I'm the (only) one trying to bring Lego and science to my goddaughter.
I used to respond immediately because I'm not a fan of playing games but now I never do, mostly because nobody else does it either. But that is only when I text. I NEVER text these days. I'd rather call. I'm impatient and I'd rather have a short quick conversation than one uncomfortable one that stretches over days.
You can easily spot the fakers from the ones who are actually unavailable though. My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was unemployed and had nothing going in her life, whereas I had super busy professors in big labs who for some reason respected my time enough to get back to me within 24 hours or 48 hours at most.
You can easily spot the fakers from the ones who are actually unavailable though. My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was unemployed and had nothing going in her life, whereas I had super busy professors in big labs who for some reason respected my time enough to get back to me within 24 hours or 48 hours at most.
> My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was unemployed and had nothing going in her life
Not to speak of your ex specifically. But this could just be a case of "shitty at replying to texts", which I also have (in relation to my mother and some of my friends, but not to other friends or my girlfriend). It's not necessarily about being a faker.
Not to speak of your ex specifically. But this could just be a case of "shitty at replying to texts", which I also have (in relation to my mother and some of my friends, but not to other friends or my girlfriend). It's not necessarily about being a faker.
Not really, depending on what type of text it was she'd reply instantaneously. Also, honestly in this day and age is it really appropriate to take at minimum 4 days to respond to a question from your "significant other"? That is not normal. Everyone is always on their phone, like she was. In any case, regardless of whether she was faking it or not, it's difficult to maintain a relationship with someone who is always either unavailable or unreliable. Eventually I start to mimic their stiffness despite how well intentioned I may be and how petty I may think my actions are.
> Also, honestly in this day and age is it really appropriate to take at minimum 4 days to respond to a question from your "significant other"? That is not normal. [emphasis added]
This is the real problem. Once you're dating someone (that is, it's past the courtship part and you've acknowledged the relationship), if you can't check your communication devices at least once or twice a day for messages from them (excluding hectic work/life schedules), there's a problem. You're continuing the game from courtship, you don't respect them, or you aren't actually into the relationship.
EDIT: Added 'once or '. I realize this is a YMMV moment, but even if you don't carry your phone during the day (like me), you can check it when you wake up and before bed. And if you're interested/invested in someone, you've got to make more time than that or there's never an actual conversation.
This is the real problem. Once you're dating someone (that is, it's past the courtship part and you've acknowledged the relationship), if you can't check your communication devices at least once or twice a day for messages from them (excluding hectic work/life schedules), there's a problem. You're continuing the game from courtship, you don't respect them, or you aren't actually into the relationship.
EDIT: Added 'once or '. I realize this is a YMMV moment, but even if you don't carry your phone during the day (like me), you can check it when you wake up and before bed. And if you're interested/invested in someone, you've got to make more time than that or there's never an actual conversation.
I once dated a girl who had two jobs and a kid. I frequently wouldn't get responses back for days. I tried to keep it going, but it fell apart after four months of one date every two or three weeks. In retrospect, I'm glad it did end, even though I was super into her.
Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense? It doesn't eliminate the wiles and ways by which we seek to gain the upper hand in a sapling relationship, but it does introduce a touch of humanity into the exchange which, in addition to being consoling, reduces wasted time and useless stress.
A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest. Is the other party still interested? If the call is answered, you can tell from the tone of voice alone, and if there's uncertainty, the sound of your voice may be enough to tip the balance. What's better, broaching the difficult questions is less difficult on the phone: you don't need to ask explicitly what you would in text, nor need you come up with some lame quip or foist one of your few common experiences to have a conversation. If there's no answer, leave a message -- at the very least, you're not likely to be ignored.
This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
Neither method is as good as a face-to-face encounter, but at least this way you reduce the risk of miscommunication or one of those alienating situations where the next-day text goes unanswered.
A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest. Is the other party still interested? If the call is answered, you can tell from the tone of voice alone, and if there's uncertainty, the sound of your voice may be enough to tip the balance. What's better, broaching the difficult questions is less difficult on the phone: you don't need to ask explicitly what you would in text, nor need you come up with some lame quip or foist one of your few common experiences to have a conversation. If there's no answer, leave a message -- at the very least, you're not likely to be ignored.
This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
Neither method is as good as a face-to-face encounter, but at least this way you reduce the risk of miscommunication or one of those alienating situations where the next-day text goes unanswered.
You are probably right but in general ever since texting became a thing I neve call anyone anymore until after I've texted. I don't mean dates I mean everyone. I know this is not objective, I grew up without texts and used to call people all the time. Now though it just seems rude. I might be interrupting, they might be busy, it might be the worst possible time to call, maybe they're driving, maybe they're in a movie and forgot to turn off their phone. With that kind of thinking in my head it feels rude. I first text, ask if it's a good time to call, call.
If someone texts me and it looks like they are looking for 1. an immediate response 2. that's not either "yes" or "no, then I simply call them. Call me old, but I'm not going to sit there trying to type out War and Peace on a keys measured in millimeters.
I'm not worried about intruding with a "rude" call. If they're texting in a situation where they're expected to be paying attention to something else, then they're already the ones being rude.
I'm not worried about intruding with a "rude" call. If they're texting in a situation where they're expected to be paying attention to something else, then they're already the ones being rude.
I think this approach would reduce one's probability of a successful outcome. It may actually be preferable that the call be somewhat unexpected, because receiving a call, particularly at this point in history, is a bit disarming.
You could be right on that. My feeling is either they're interested or they're not. If they are interesting they'll be happy to hear from me. If they're not I'm not interested in trying to change their mind.
> Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense?
Because if you're trying to take out a 20-something that you've only had passing interaction with, texting is the socially acceptable way to do it. You don't just call.
Because if you're trying to take out a 20-something that you've only had passing interaction with, texting is the socially acceptable way to do it. You don't just call.
As such a 20-something, I can attest that this is not universally true.
Are you a male 20-something or a female 20-something?
The male 20-somethings I know are largely chill and don't really care how a woman reaches out.
The female 20-somethings I know (both as friends and as romantic partners), on the other hand, universally prefer a text. They feel a phone call puts them on the spot; they call it "awkward" or "weird". In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already into the guy. If they're unsure about the guy, he's probably ensured he's going to get a negative response.
And, of course, this is probably not universally true of all female 20-somethings, but if you are courting, it's better to play the game by the numbers.
After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
The male 20-somethings I know are largely chill and don't really care how a woman reaches out.
The female 20-somethings I know (both as friends and as romantic partners), on the other hand, universally prefer a text. They feel a phone call puts them on the spot; they call it "awkward" or "weird". In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already into the guy. If they're unsure about the guy, he's probably ensured he's going to get a negative response.
And, of course, this is probably not universally true of all female 20-somethings, but if you are courting, it's better to play the game by the numbers.
After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
> In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already into the guy. If they're unsure about the guy, he's probably ensured he's going to get a negative response.
Counterpoint: this is self selection mechanism in itself. I don't want to be dating the person who can't handle getting a phone call without it being "awkward" or "weird".
Playing the game by the numbers is only worthwhile if your goal is ephemeral (i.e. to "score"). If your goal is to have a lasting meaningful relationship, then who cares what the numbers are. Be yourself.
> After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
If your preferences matter to you, use them as a selection methodology or you're just wasting time.
Counterpoint: this is self selection mechanism in itself. I don't want to be dating the person who can't handle getting a phone call without it being "awkward" or "weird".
Playing the game by the numbers is only worthwhile if your goal is ephemeral (i.e. to "score"). If your goal is to have a lasting meaningful relationship, then who cares what the numbers are. Be yourself.
> After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.
If your preferences matter to you, use them as a selection methodology or you're just wasting time.
People are not constant in every phase of a relationship. All those 20-something females I mentioned like phone calls later in the relationship.
By applying your selection criteria during the initial phase you're not really applying it to them at all. You're just limiting your chances of success, very severely.
By applying your selection criteria during the initial phase you're not really applying it to them at all. You're just limiting your chances of success, very severely.
[deleted]
I disagree, while it is important to be aware of social cues, this way of thinking would limit one's options too much. It is too binary for starters. Not all women and men are like this. Secondly, one can impose his/her own frame from time to time. If one really believes that texting is the only social acceptable thing to do, then that person gives any power he/she has away without even 'negotiating' with the other person.
It's like politics. Some people wouldn't even pick up the phone and only respond to texts (they vote for party A). Some people only call (they vote for party B). Yet, a lot of people have a tendency towards one or the other but essentially they're in the middle. And everyone knows you can influence swing voters. And I think everyone should know that you can influence most other people. So if one loves to call, then I'd suggest he/she picks up the phone and call. If one loves to text, then he/she should text. But one should always be too wary of adapting to others too fast if the manner of communication gives more stress than positivity.
Simple :) You can trust a metta mage on this one ;)
It's like politics. Some people wouldn't even pick up the phone and only respond to texts (they vote for party A). Some people only call (they vote for party B). Yet, a lot of people have a tendency towards one or the other but essentially they're in the middle. And everyone knows you can influence swing voters. And I think everyone should know that you can influence most other people. So if one loves to call, then I'd suggest he/she picks up the phone and call. If one loves to text, then he/she should text. But one should always be too wary of adapting to others too fast if the manner of communication gives more stress than positivity.
Simple :) You can trust a metta mage on this one ;)
>> Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense?
Because it is easier to come up with dozens of arguments for texting than having the balls to ask someone out on the phone.
>> This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
True words.
Because it is easier to come up with dozens of arguments for texting than having the balls to ask someone out on the phone.
>> This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.
True words.
When I first met my fiance a few years ago, I had been on my 40ish online date and she her 3rd. I had all these rules about gauging girls' interest, mostly to protect myself from pain of rejection. Wait a day or two, text, not more than 2 lines, wait for a few hours, if no response, remove number promptly from phone. After every successful date, I sent my fiance a text asking her out again or to make small talk and I would get a response back anywhere from 9 hours to 24 hours and sometimes up to 48 hours later. The joke I tell people about our early courtship is that I deleted my fiance's number 10 times. Once I decided that her unpredictable texting shouldn't be a dealbreaker, life got much easier. After a while I just accepted that she's a horrible texter, and still remains one to this day.
Some people just aren't big on technology, as crazy as that sounds. My fiance doesn't work in tech, doesn't have a laptop, barely uses her phone. In fact, its one of the things I have come to love about her because it has helped me detach and be more mindful.
Some people just aren't big on technology, as crazy as that sounds. My fiance doesn't work in tech, doesn't have a laptop, barely uses her phone. In fact, its one of the things I have come to love about her because it has helped me detach and be more mindful.
The best time to search for funding is when you don't need it.
The best time to search for a job is when you don't need it.
The best time to search for a partner is when you don't need it.
I got my current girlfriends after two years of being single and realizing that being single is okay.
The best time to search for a job is when you don't need it.
The best time to search for a partner is when you don't need it.
I got my current girlfriends after two years of being single and realizing that being single is okay.
I would argue that it's hard to build healthy relationship when you're _not_ okay being single. Needing a relationship to feel okay sets the ground for developing codependency, which hurts everyone involved. Also, when you're actively looking for someone to have relationship with you look desperate, which scares people off. (Not to mention that having relationship itself as a goal, as opposed to wanting to build a relationship with the great person in front of you, is objectifying and most people would avoid being objectified)
'Need' is not always logical. You buy a car when you need one - and look desperate to the car salesman. But you need it, so you shop.
More helpful advice is, how to shop intelligently when needy.
More helpful advice is, how to shop intelligently when needy.
You need a car to do what? Most commonly, to transport your body from point A to point B. You can also consider other alternatives and pick one that (you think) works the best.
I doubt that there is such a thing as "need to be in relationship", very often it is a cover for some other, deeper need, like "need to not feel alone", "need for social recognition", "need to feel secure" and so on. And unless that deeper need is realized and verbally communicated, there's a high chance that it won't be satisfied in the best possible way, if at all. Some of those needs even cannot be satisfied by another person (e.g. no one can cure your internal insecurities but yourself). It is your job, as a person, to work on realizing your actual needs. And once you do, you can ask another person to help you fulfill them.
Another important difference between cars and people is that people are sentient beings with their own will and their own needs. And when people see that someone is treating them as a tool to fulfill their needs, before even getting to know them better, they are likely to avoid engaging in such activity.
I doubt that there is such a thing as "need to be in relationship", very often it is a cover for some other, deeper need, like "need to not feel alone", "need for social recognition", "need to feel secure" and so on. And unless that deeper need is realized and verbally communicated, there's a high chance that it won't be satisfied in the best possible way, if at all. Some of those needs even cannot be satisfied by another person (e.g. no one can cure your internal insecurities but yourself). It is your job, as a person, to work on realizing your actual needs. And once you do, you can ask another person to help you fulfill them.
Another important difference between cars and people is that people are sentient beings with their own will and their own needs. And when people see that someone is treating them as a tool to fulfill their needs, before even getting to know them better, they are likely to avoid engaging in such activity.
> deeper need, like "need to not feel alone", "need for social recognition", "need to feel secure" and so on
Why is this such a big problem? We are social animals and like to be around others. And yes, part of it is social recognition, we mostly do what's expected in our culture and don't like to be the odd ones. Many people like to boast how unique and non-conformist they are, but deep down most of us want to be accepted.
You could say there's no need for career achievements either, because then you're just a workoholic. There's no need for anything in particular.
I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter. Most of us aren't like that and if you listen to any successful person they will tell you how much they can thank other people (spouse, family, friends) for their support and how they couldn't have achieved the things they did without that support. The totally individualist mindset is not healthy I think (for most people).
Of course I don't mean you should be desperate. But people in our lives are not just "supporting actors" in our movie, but a lot more important. They shape us in many ways.
Why is this such a big problem? We are social animals and like to be around others. And yes, part of it is social recognition, we mostly do what's expected in our culture and don't like to be the odd ones. Many people like to boast how unique and non-conformist they are, but deep down most of us want to be accepted.
You could say there's no need for career achievements either, because then you're just a workoholic. There's no need for anything in particular.
I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter. Most of us aren't like that and if you listen to any successful person they will tell you how much they can thank other people (spouse, family, friends) for their support and how they couldn't have achieved the things they did without that support. The totally individualist mindset is not healthy I think (for most people).
Of course I don't mean you should be desperate. But people in our lives are not just "supporting actors" in our movie, but a lot more important. They shape us in many ways.
> Why is this such a big problem?
These needs are not a problem. But not stating them clearly creates a problem, where you do what you think would help, but your needs are still not satisfied.
> I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter.
I didn't say that either. The more clear and honest you are in expressing your needs to others – the more likely you to get them fulfilled. But for that you often need to do some work first; you can't rely on others to know your needs better then you.
These needs are not a problem. But not stating them clearly creates a problem, where you do what you think would help, but your needs are still not satisfied.
> I don't like this sentiment that everyone must be a rock and steel-strong independent individual who never has to rely on others/relationships/family/society and just cuts through life like a knife through butter.
I didn't say that either. The more clear and honest you are in expressing your needs to others – the more likely you to get them fulfilled. But for that you often need to do some work first; you can't rely on others to know your needs better then you.
While I mostly agree with you, if someone acts like they don't want a relationship at all (or plays super hard to get), then I'll just move on to someone who does, because I don't have time to waste trying to get someone interested in me.
I wasted way too much time on women who were friendly but emotionally unavailable (and didn't want to admit it to themselves) in my teens and 20s to ever want to go through that again.
I wasted way too much time on women who were friendly but emotionally unavailable (and didn't want to admit it to themselves) in my teens and 20s to ever want to go through that again.
> While I mostly agree with you, if someone acts like they don't want a relationship at all (or plays super hard to get), then I'll just move on to someone who does, because I don't have time to waste trying to get someone interested in me.
I didn't say that you should hide your interest in relationship to get it. I only said that pursuing something you imagine word "relationship" means, instead of paying attention to particular person, will not do any good for you.
In my opinion, if you like someone – say so, if you want to engage in some activity with the person – tell them so. If they reciprocate – good for both of you, if not – get over it and move on.
I didn't say that you should hide your interest in relationship to get it. I only said that pursuing something you imagine word "relationship" means, instead of paying attention to particular person, will not do any good for you.
In my opinion, if you like someone – say so, if you want to engage in some activity with the person – tell them so. If they reciprocate – good for both of you, if not – get over it and move on.
That's too simple. The statement is not nuanced enough and it is unfortunately only a necessary condition. This type of advice gave me a hard time for a couple of years -- when I was rather clueless and young.
It's not a sufficient condition: I don't need make-up, yet the best time searching for it is never.
It's not a nuanced statement: I don't need a car now. Even if I could get a cheap car, it would be extra baggage and a distraction. I don't need it.
It's not that your advice is nonsense, I never said that ;)
Research on the poor shows that because they need money, they get stressed. I think the same applies for: funding, a job and a partner. It adds stress, which in turn, lowers one's decision ability. I presume you were hinting at this.
But then the statement doesn't become: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it." It should be: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it right now." Perhaps still a bit unnuanced -- improvements are welcome -- but your examples (funding, job and partner) implies that you'd need it at a later stage. Or perhaps better said, that is when it gets interesting. I probably can find the best make-up deal in town, because I don't need it. I also couldn't care less.
Additions and changes are welcome.
It's not a sufficient condition: I don't need make-up, yet the best time searching for it is never.
It's not a nuanced statement: I don't need a car now. Even if I could get a cheap car, it would be extra baggage and a distraction. I don't need it.
It's not that your advice is nonsense, I never said that ;)
Research on the poor shows that because they need money, they get stressed. I think the same applies for: funding, a job and a partner. It adds stress, which in turn, lowers one's decision ability. I presume you were hinting at this.
But then the statement doesn't become: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it." It should be: "the best time to search for x is when you don't need it right now." Perhaps still a bit unnuanced -- improvements are welcome -- but your examples (funding, job and partner) implies that you'd need it at a later stage. Or perhaps better said, that is when it gets interesting. I probably can find the best make-up deal in town, because I don't need it. I also couldn't care less.
Additions and changes are welcome.
Also, regarding both the car and job versions. I've always heard it and said it as, "The best time to look for a job is when you have one." Same for cars. Hardly good advice for dating if your aim is long-term.
Do your current girlfriends know about each other? :P
The secret is letting them both know they are the one you are cheating with, not the one you are cheating on.
Interesting idea. But no, they know of each other. No probs.
Asking the real questions are we? Ha!
Yes :P
Did you get any physical intimacy during those two years?
the first year, I did date a few people...
I'm coming up on 8 months since I last had any physical intimacy, and it's making it a lot harder to be okay with being single. I pretty much assume "as long as you're getting occasional physical intimacy" is implied whenever anyone says "you should learn to be okay with being single."
In fact, for me, it is the other way around.
When I was dating some girls, I couldn't concentrate on myself completely.
I had to stop it and check what I really wanted, what I wanted "besides" not being alone.
This lead to questioning my job and quit it too, haha.
When I was single, and knew what I wanted, I didn't had to cry after someone who didn't accept me for who I wasn't, it became okay for me.
I started to see the opinions, people have about me, simply as an opinion and not criticism about me as a person. Like some people don't like peanut butter, and I do, and it doesn't make peanut butter less delicious just because some people don't like it. I don't liked monogamy so I didn't date mono-people anymore.
Then I started to project this into my work life as well. I looked what I wanted and threw away what I had. I didn't want a 9-5 job in an open office space, I wanted home office without people disturbing me while coding, without commuting etc. So I didn't accept any offers that didn't at least offered this.
Now my life feels much better :)
When I was dating some girls, I couldn't concentrate on myself completely.
I had to stop it and check what I really wanted, what I wanted "besides" not being alone.
This lead to questioning my job and quit it too, haha.
When I was single, and knew what I wanted, I didn't had to cry after someone who didn't accept me for who I wasn't, it became okay for me.
I started to see the opinions, people have about me, simply as an opinion and not criticism about me as a person. Like some people don't like peanut butter, and I do, and it doesn't make peanut butter less delicious just because some people don't like it. I don't liked monogamy so I didn't date mono-people anymore.
Then I started to project this into my work life as well. I looked what I wanted and threw away what I had. I didn't want a 9-5 job in an open office space, I wanted home office without people disturbing me while coding, without commuting etc. So I didn't accept any offers that didn't at least offered this.
Now my life feels much better :)
I can totally understand all that. I've had all the same thoughts before.
But 6 months without sex or even a kiss is hard.
But 6 months without sex or even a kiss is hard.
I wouldn't say that's implied. That's why it's so difficult.
EDIT: In fact, I'd say the opposite is implied.
EDIT: In fact, I'd say the opposite is implied.
I met about 400+ girls last summer and I became very good at texting.
Rule #1, never get mad or upset at them by text. Ever.
Rule #2, never appear weak or unsure. Never qualify what you say.
Rule #3, girls 99% of the time respond but people get busy. Sometimes I want to respond to a text but I want my mind to be more clear or I get distracted. Or you just don't feel so social. Or you are depressed, sick, busy etc. Some are in school and working. Some have boyfriends.
Sometimes girls don't respond until the next day and occasionally they don't respond at all. But then just wait and in 1 or 2 weeks, send a friendly photo, casually invite them to an invite or say a funny joke or observation.
People get busy and a lack of response means nothing.
Also I like to invite them places or tell them what I am doing. But going out is a lot of energy and money. And some don't like crowds.
So at some point, you should be direct, or ask them on a proper date or what not. But never confide via text how much you like someone, unless you already hooked up.
And sometimes I'll send a dangerous text, like I told this girl to call me whenever she felt like being "dirty" with a bit of provocative language. She did not respond to it. But she responded and I just push forward. Never look back, never apologize (generally speaking).
There is no such thing as a friend zone. You can be just friends but occassionally flirt and don't diminish yourself as a sexual being. Lack confidence? Work out, take a class.
And if you don't look like Brad Pitt or aren't noticeably rich, the girls might not stumble over each other to get to you.
But you can get them. Girls don't know what they want, they are easily persuaded and lazy. (This goes for all people.)
Rule #1, never get mad or upset at them by text. Ever.
Rule #2, never appear weak or unsure. Never qualify what you say.
Rule #3, girls 99% of the time respond but people get busy. Sometimes I want to respond to a text but I want my mind to be more clear or I get distracted. Or you just don't feel so social. Or you are depressed, sick, busy etc. Some are in school and working. Some have boyfriends.
Sometimes girls don't respond until the next day and occasionally they don't respond at all. But then just wait and in 1 or 2 weeks, send a friendly photo, casually invite them to an invite or say a funny joke or observation.
People get busy and a lack of response means nothing.
Also I like to invite them places or tell them what I am doing. But going out is a lot of energy and money. And some don't like crowds.
So at some point, you should be direct, or ask them on a proper date or what not. But never confide via text how much you like someone, unless you already hooked up.
And sometimes I'll send a dangerous text, like I told this girl to call me whenever she felt like being "dirty" with a bit of provocative language. She did not respond to it. But she responded and I just push forward. Never look back, never apologize (generally speaking).
There is no such thing as a friend zone. You can be just friends but occassionally flirt and don't diminish yourself as a sexual being. Lack confidence? Work out, take a class.
And if you don't look like Brad Pitt or aren't noticeably rich, the girls might not stumble over each other to get to you.
But you can get them. Girls don't know what they want, they are easily persuaded and lazy. (This goes for all people.)
Sorry but 400? What?
I meant to clarify. I volunteered at a hostel this summer doing activities. So every morning I had to talk to girls at breakfast and invite them to hikes or beer pong.
I also met a dozen girls or so girls a week out in LA. I was going out almost every day and night though.
I also had a friend with a ridiculously amazing condo so I'd bring girls there. The condo didn't help that much but the confidence probably did.
Even with all this, it was exhausting and annoying to meet girls. 99% seem uninteresting and mean; only text me to invite them somewhere. And I was just friends with most.
I'm somewhat of a misanthrope. People in general are selfish and weird. Accepting people as flawed creatures and focusing on the positives have helped a lot.
Edit- Travelling and staying in hostels rejuvenated my faith in others. I highly recommend it.
I also met a dozen girls or so girls a week out in LA. I was going out almost every day and night though.
I also had a friend with a ridiculously amazing condo so I'd bring girls there. The condo didn't help that much but the confidence probably did.
Even with all this, it was exhausting and annoying to meet girls. 99% seem uninteresting and mean; only text me to invite them somewhere. And I was just friends with most.
I'm somewhat of a misanthrope. People in general are selfish and weird. Accepting people as flawed creatures and focusing on the positives have helped a lot.
Edit- Travelling and staying in hostels rejuvenated my faith in others. I highly recommend it.
Yeesh. Finding a girlfriend in college and getting married not too long after graduation remains the best decision I've ever made. I don't know how people deal with this shit.
I'm in the same spot but completely opposite at the same time. I'm happily single. I've had a lot of relationships, good and bad, but in the end nothing makes me more happy than being alone. I thought it would be a phase but it has been many years now and I don't miss a thing.
good one! Idem. And cherish that. I've booked the sitter and am choosing the restaurant for tomorrow evening; Sunday will be flowers and chocolates only for my better half; monday mornings are busy with kids...
I read it somewhere, so no credit, but here's a good one all around in the age of massive profiling and asocial media (or should it be ass-social?). Flip-phone. No really. like nokia circa 2000. Plug in to your computer to sync your contacs.
We make ourselves too available to the noise makers. What's on fb or that really matters to your happiness? Why pursue a relationship attempt with someone that cant be 100% available for a 30-secs phone call in crucial courtship phase, to book a date?
Disconnect. It's all fake. Go and meet someone at the local library. Or the laundromat. Give him/her 5 full minutes of undivided attention(until he/she pulls out his/her phone, less likely to happen in front of a stranger, especially someone that shows genuine appreciation) and find him/her 3 qualities. Say his/her name. You'll be surprised that meaningful relationship are easier to develop in this paradigm of constant partial presence/absence.
I read it somewhere, so no credit, but here's a good one all around in the age of massive profiling and asocial media (or should it be ass-social?). Flip-phone. No really. like nokia circa 2000. Plug in to your computer to sync your contacs.
We make ourselves too available to the noise makers. What's on fb or that really matters to your happiness? Why pursue a relationship attempt with someone that cant be 100% available for a 30-secs phone call in crucial courtship phase, to book a date?
Disconnect. It's all fake. Go and meet someone at the local library. Or the laundromat. Give him/her 5 full minutes of undivided attention(until he/she pulls out his/her phone, less likely to happen in front of a stranger, especially someone that shows genuine appreciation) and find him/her 3 qualities. Say his/her name. You'll be surprised that meaningful relationship are easier to develop in this paradigm of constant partial presence/absence.
It's not just a choice. Many are in this situation because they tried your strategy and did not succeed.
I'm in the same boat, but it depends on who you are as a person. As stressful as dating can be, I can see the appeal vs being tied down. Some people even love the stress.
I love being married, but some of my friends would be miserable if they were. To each their own!
I love being married, but some of my friends would be miserable if they were. To each their own!
Oh sure. Obviously it works for some people. I'm just saying I don't understand it. :)
1) for me one of the merits of text communication is that it's asynchronous: there is a space to delay message processing for as long as recipient needs. Setting yourself to expect immediate response under such circumstances is bound to cause frustration.
2) intentionally delaying the response just for the sake of making yourself more desirable sounds very manipulative to me, and I'd be very inclined to stop pursuing emotional connection with person who does this.
2) intentionally delaying the response just for the sake of making yourself more desirable sounds very manipulative to me, and I'd be very inclined to stop pursuing emotional connection with person who does this.
Sorry this is a bit of an un-HN comment
> A few months later I ran into Tanya. We had a lot of fun together and she eventually told me that she was sorry she didn’t get back to me that time. Apparently at the time she was questioning her entire sexual identity and was trying to figure out if she was a lesbian.
I had this, but slightly different, from the other side recently. Met this great girl, got on really well, talked on Facebook for weeks, there was definitely some of this "How long should I wait?" going on. But, unfortunately for her this coincided with me questioning my gender. As time was going on things were progressing well with her, but it felt more and more like I was lying to her and leading her on. I didn't know how to go about telling her, it's not the kind of thing you can tell someone you don't know that well, let alone someone you are flirting with... In the end I noobed out and stopped talking to her. I felt so guilty, I'm sure she was wondering what she did or said. I have since apologised and told her why.
> Well, that was definitely not a theory that crossed my mind.
I think that was pretty much exactly what she said.
> A few months later I ran into Tanya. We had a lot of fun together and she eventually told me that she was sorry she didn’t get back to me that time. Apparently at the time she was questioning her entire sexual identity and was trying to figure out if she was a lesbian.
I had this, but slightly different, from the other side recently. Met this great girl, got on really well, talked on Facebook for weeks, there was definitely some of this "How long should I wait?" going on. But, unfortunately for her this coincided with me questioning my gender. As time was going on things were progressing well with her, but it felt more and more like I was lying to her and leading her on. I didn't know how to go about telling her, it's not the kind of thing you can tell someone you don't know that well, let alone someone you are flirting with... In the end I noobed out and stopped talking to her. I felt so guilty, I'm sure she was wondering what she did or said. I have since apologised and told her why.
> Well, that was definitely not a theory that crossed my mind.
I think that was pretty much exactly what she said.
To be fair, she did say "no more games."
She's sending mixed signals, which is human. Unfortunately, the author weighted the two disproportionally.
She's sending mixed signals, which is human. Unfortunately, the author weighted the two disproportionally.
My experience is: If you have to use tactics, it won't work in the long run.
And if you think it's smart to deliberately model yourself on a neglectful, mildly sociopathic personality, shame on you.
And if you think it's smart to deliberately model yourself on a neglectful, mildly sociopathic personality, shame on you.
There were many things wrong with how Aziz approached the situation. Firstly, he should NOT have invited her to a big concert right away: concerts/events are a big commitment, time and attention-wise. If he had just met the person, the best thing to do would probably have been to meet for coffee/drinks, get to know each other better and THEN propose going to the concert IN PERSON.
Secondly, there are a lot of factors why people will not text you back. Aziz is basically trying to understand why a girl he hooked up with did not text him back. There can be SO many reasons why; but primarily, she was just not that into him. If she was, then she WOULD have found time. She WOULD have found his attempt to find common ground, to find something they both liked, charming.
Secondly, there are a lot of factors why people will not text you back. Aziz is basically trying to understand why a girl he hooked up with did not text him back. There can be SO many reasons why; but primarily, she was just not that into him. If she was, then she WOULD have found time. She WOULD have found his attempt to find common ground, to find something they both liked, charming.
“Hey—don’t know if you left for NYC, but Beach House
playing tonight and tomorrow at Wiltern. You wanna go?
Maybe they’ll let you cover The Motto if we ask nicely?”
2) He knew she enjoyed the music, they'd listened to it the night before. So while a concert is a time commitment, he at least knew it was one she might be interested in.
3) He gave her both that day and the next as options for the date.
4) He referenced both the music they'd listened to while together and her singing at the party. Reinforced the shared experience, and pointed out that he was paying some attention to her.
He did fine. See the note at the end about their second encounter when she said there'd be no games the second time around, and she went right back to it. The lack of reply was all on her, he did everything he could/should have done (much more would've been inappropriate since they didn't yet have much of a connection, and less would've been doing nothing which he'd likely have regretted for the missed opportunity).
I agree there's slight mistakes in what he texted but just because she didn't text back means almost nothing.
As you said, there are a lot of reasons why she didn't text back and a lot are probably related to what he texted and her intensity for him but not necessarily how she feels about him.
People don't know what they want, are easily pursuaded and lazy.
As you said, there are a lot of reasons why she didn't text back and a lot are probably related to what he texted and her intensity for him but not necessarily how she feels about him.
People don't know what they want, are easily pursuaded and lazy.
I disagree that there was anything wrong about Aziz's approach. In fact, the concert thing likely didn't play any role (read the afterwords). Sometimes these things work. Sometimes they don't. This isn't math; there is no surefire formula.
[deleted]
My strategy when I meet a girl I like is to exchange numbers, but have no intention of contacting them. The girl always has to contact the guy first. It's just how it works.
Trust me, this is not true. Initiating contact is not only acceptable, but quite often preferred. Generally this approach is just protecting your self-esteem.
No, it's a sign of respect. In these days of Tinder, girls are used to guys hitting on them all the time. By not contacting them, you are actually sending a message.
This is not great advice because girls aren't as proactive and they have plenty of old and new guys to distract them.
I see it like those grammar errors in scam emails - making people self-select themselves for qualities you want.
Even at crazy low success rate, it's still only a matter of time.
Even at crazy low success rate, it's still only a matter of time.
There are guys I meet that I think could become my best friend or a great future co-founder. But I never call or text them, because I get busy with work and life.
>The girl always has to contact the guy first. It's just how it works
That seems a bit childish.
That seems a bit childish.
Not only that, it seems like an ineffective strategy. I can't imagine you'd get more than a 10% response rate from this - and that's if you are exceedingly attractive. If you are just an average joe, this strategy basically does not work. If I had enough things going on in my life though I'd also always wait for the woman to contact me first because I've been used and manipulated too many times and don't see most women as worth the effort.
That's because it is. Most people grow out of this sort of thing, eventually.
This all feels a bit silly as I'm not terribly convinced time-between-texts conveys much about the process (THE BRAIN) generating said data points.
The flow chart for "Should I reply to this right now?" is pretty complicated; recovering that PGM is hard!
And as for signaling "busyness" -- that's better accomplished through delaying showing you "read" their messsage, no?
Is there a missing niche for a whatsapp wrapper that delays "read" confirmations by 3 minutes?
The flow chart for "Should I reply to this right now?" is pretty complicated; recovering that PGM is hard!
And as for signaling "busyness" -- that's better accomplished through delaying showing you "read" their messsage, no?
Is there a missing niche for a whatsapp wrapper that delays "read" confirmations by 3 minutes?
Is it only me that finds this type of obsessive-compulsive over-thinking somewhat bizarre; yet the author is trying to pass it off as the norm.
Perhaps it's the author's fretful nature and over analysis that drives women away?
I've found the following 'tactics' have worked quite well: - If you want to send a message, send a message. - If they don't reply, they're busy, or they don't want to speak with you.
How is it any more complicated than that?
Perhaps it's the author's fretful nature and over analysis that drives women away?
I've found the following 'tactics' have worked quite well: - If you want to send a message, send a message. - If they don't reply, they're busy, or they don't want to speak with you.
How is it any more complicated than that?
It is complicated because anecdotally I've found that if I respond to a woman's texts immediately, their interest drops dramatically regardless of how attracted to me they may have been in the first place. They say we should strive to "be ourselves" but me being punished for respecting another person's time makes me a bit cynical. Nowadays I make sure I wait 30 minutes minimum to respond to a text if I don't know you, and if I do respond it will be to ask you when is the best time to call. I hate texting - it is a weird and unnatural form of communication. By talking to you I can judge very quickly whether you are worth the effort.
What are you going to say next -- that love is really simple?
No, but there's no need to render it more complicated than it has to be.
If the person on the other side loses interests because you are indeed being yourself, take it as an advantage. If they don't want to make the effort in the period when they should make the effort, they've saved you time.
The flipside, of course, is that if you're somewhat like the author and have an fretting behavioural trait, you'll probably scare off a lot of people - which is still a good thing. The ones that stay are worth your time.
If the person on the other side loses interests because you are indeed being yourself, take it as an advantage. If they don't want to make the effort in the period when they should make the effort, they've saved you time.
The flipside, of course, is that if you're somewhat like the author and have an fretting behavioural trait, you'll probably scare off a lot of people - which is still a good thing. The ones that stay are worth your time.
Text are asynchronous by nature. Expecting an immediate response is selfish. You expect the other person to carry their phone, check their phone constantly, and drop everything to respond to your (usually dumb) message? Maybe that works with family, but not understanding the nature of asynchronous messaging will hurt the sender a lot more than the receiver. Yes, people sometimes play games, but most of the time they probably have lives (some people still work and such during the day for example). The worst of the worst is when someone gets angry because you didn't respond when they wanted you to. Those people do not deserve anyone's friendship.
I realize that this is an inquiry from another era, but people find it acceptable that other people know when they have read a text? Isn't that pretty intrusive?
IMs had that feature in the 90s, so at least for the digital era it's not abnormal for most of us. Professionally, we use read-receipts in emails in my office.
I don't mind IM's showing the 'read' bit, but for some reason I've always found read receipts on emails rude, and when it pops up the prompt to send the receipt back I always hit 'Cancel'. I wonder why.
Two interesting and somehow opposite aspects of modern culture, we seek instant gratification and we willingly delay communication.
I wonder if there is a relationship between the two.
I wonder if there is a relationship between the two.
We're willing to gratify ourselves, while withholding the gratification of others?
...my strategy on the other hand, is to drag one conversation over days/weeks, with several hours/days of (not intentional) gaps in between, and act as if it's a single ongoing unbroken conversation.
Not the optimal strategy, but I'm amazed that a ball of grains, dairy and fruits managed to get that for anyway, so everything is a win.
Not the optimal strategy, but I'm amazed that a ball of grains, dairy and fruits managed to get that for anyway, so everything is a win.
Just call her or ask her before she leaves.
Women are allowed to call you too btw.
Women are allowed to call you too btw.
If your attraction to someone is determined by whether they have a 1 minute or 10 minute response time, then maybe you should reexamine your priorities.
You're assuming that attraction is rational and a matter of choice. Think about it. Isn't the world is wonderful because it isn't?
That is a rather profound observation. Perhaps the Geek subculture's disdain of the principles of social interaction is because we often try to make sense of it rationally.
I think that's true. But we're at the tip of a large iceberg. In general people want to believe that they are in control of their emotions and choices, and that they are rational. The more you learn about psychology and neurology the more you realize how much of a conceit that is. It changes your perspective dramatically.
Read about Libet's experiments, sales techniques, anchoring, all that. Or meditate for a while and see what it does to your perception of yourself. We want to believe we're the bit of ourselves that tells ourselves what we are doing and what we will do, but we're all the rest of the wiring too and not a lot of that is fully under our control.
Read about Libet's experiments, sales techniques, anchoring, all that. Or meditate for a while and see what it does to your perception of yourself. We want to believe we're the bit of ourselves that tells ourselves what we are doing and what we will do, but we're all the rest of the wiring too and not a lot of that is fully under our control.
A good example of no control is addiction. A person can do something that they're addictied to, while their rational brain is yelling "no! no! no!" at the same time, perhaps even vocalizing it, but you still perform the addictive action. The more clever individuals may overcome this by planning their defense way ahead, e.g. by completely changing their environment or using other tricks to manipulate their more automatic brain parts. However most people seem to need external help with overcoming addiction, even if they're aware of the problem and want to solve it.
Attraction sometimes is not a matter of choice, but actions are. You can decide to continue communication with someone or not. You're not a slave of your attraction.
Actions are a matter of choice, and I agree it's best not to be a jerk. I don't like jerks.
However, I think you're missing the point: you can play nice (answer texts immediately) but you cannot avoid the irrational reaction of finding someone who immediately answers back less attractive (or whatever; if this isn't something you experience, substitute with whatever other irrational dating behaviors you do experience -- maybe you like cute smiles, maybe you dislike loud laughter that sounds like snorting).
Attraction is not rational. You cannot force yourself (or others) to be rational about it. You can choose to play nice, but you cannot choose to feel attracted to someone. Attraction and romance are games with bizarre rules, whether we like it or not.
However, I think you're missing the point: you can play nice (answer texts immediately) but you cannot avoid the irrational reaction of finding someone who immediately answers back less attractive (or whatever; if this isn't something you experience, substitute with whatever other irrational dating behaviors you do experience -- maybe you like cute smiles, maybe you dislike loud laughter that sounds like snorting).
Attraction is not rational. You cannot force yourself (or others) to be rational about it. You can choose to play nice, but you cannot choose to feel attracted to someone. Attraction and romance are games with bizarre rules, whether we like it or not.
Sometimes it's nice to be, right?
Nope. Attraction is a nice thing to feel, but it's generally more satisfying if you act on it with conscious choice and not feel "forced" to do something just because you feel a certain way.
I don't think that's how attraction works :(
Maybe building a stable, committed relationship -- something that not all people want, by the way, and that's ok -- is an exercise in restraint and rationality, but immediate attraction and hookups? It works irrationally almost by definition.
Maybe building a stable, committed relationship -- something that not all people want, by the way, and that's ok -- is an exercise in restraint and rationality, but immediate attraction and hookups? It works irrationally almost by definition.
My point is not about how attraction works, it's about what people do about it. You can feel attraction and decide to act on it almost instantly, but that's still your choice and you are responsible for what you do. But if you feel that attraction is "making you do something" against your will, when you realize negative consequences of your actions – that's definition of addiction.
What I'm arguing is that attraction bypasses the mechanisms of will and rational decision. We are not logical robots. Most of us do not "decide" to like another person.
Falling in love or feeling sexually attracted to someone are irrational things by definition. You do not decide to do it. You cannot force yourself to feel attracted to someone because they "play fair", either. Because of (reasonable) society norms, you cannot simply engage with everyone you're sexually attracted to -- it's not ok to harass fellow coworkers, or someone else's partner, etc. But the core of it is irrational. You cannot impose rational rules like "I'll pay more attention to people who text me back immediately or who are more considerate of other people, or who I agree with on serious issues, even though what I'd really like is to call X and do the naughty all night long".
Falling in love or feeling sexually attracted to someone are irrational things by definition. You do not decide to do it. You cannot force yourself to feel attracted to someone because they "play fair", either. Because of (reasonable) society norms, you cannot simply engage with everyone you're sexually attracted to -- it's not ok to harass fellow coworkers, or someone else's partner, etc. But the core of it is irrational. You cannot impose rational rules like "I'll pay more attention to people who text me back immediately or who are more considerate of other people, or who I agree with on serious issues, even though what I'd really like is to call X and do the naughty all night long".
Agreed, but seeing things through the frame of addiction can be a trap. Issue is really ego-syntonic versus ego-dystonic. Own your feelings and what you decide to do. Guess I'm agreeing.
'the status of my text message changed to “read.”'
I am assuming this is an iPhone "feature"? Creepy. Can it be disabled?
I am assuming this is an iPhone "feature"? Creepy. Can it be disabled?
iMessages, facebook, whatsapp, ... Unfortunately every messaging platform (except old school texts, but iPhones will automatically send iMessages to other iPhones) seem to have implemented this "feature"
It's optional in iMessages, I believe it's opt-in (not 100%, changed the setting a long time ago to have it on, personal preference).
That said, it was creepy when I realized the only reason it was enabled on my ex-girlfriend's phone (she didn't like it and is tech-illiterate) was that her previous boyfriend had enabled it to see if/when she read his messages (creepy dude that'd send her flowers randomly two years after their break up, but she thought it was sweet and that they were "just friends", yeah, sure).
That said, it was creepy when I realized the only reason it was enabled on my ex-girlfriend's phone (she didn't like it and is tech-illiterate) was that her previous boyfriend had enabled it to see if/when she read his messages (creepy dude that'd send her flowers randomly two years after their break up, but she thought it was sweet and that they were "just friends", yeah, sure).
TIL guys are openly hostile to solid dating advice
It's not very welcome when it's this complicated. Injecting social artifices into something as seemingly simple as text communication is frustrating. How often do any of us think about the emotional impact of the timing of a text message in any other context?
Please elaborate on what you consider "solid dating advice" and why.
So TL;DR:
Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement) kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most drama.
I get that about right? ;)
Word to the wise (single men): Online dating apps put much more power into the hands of women than men. If you want to score something "out of your league," you're going to have to take a walk out of the ballpark, and get your hands dirty in the real world with some face-to-face time. Uncoincidentally, this takes advantage of another psychological principle, Repeated Proximity Breeds Attraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect)
Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio Reinforcement Schedule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement) kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most drama.
I get that about right? ;)
Word to the wise (single men): Online dating apps put much more power into the hands of women than men. If you want to score something "out of your league," you're going to have to take a walk out of the ballpark, and get your hands dirty in the real world with some face-to-face time. Uncoincidentally, this takes advantage of another psychological principle, Repeated Proximity Breeds Attraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect)
I've been on both sides of "Repeated Proximity Breeds Attraction", and that's part of the reason why I like meetups so much. It allows for that to occur naturally without imposing yourself on anyone. Just be friendly and keep showing up and over time, people tend to express interest.
> Online dating apps put much more power into the hands of women than men.
No, online dating puts more power into the hands of beautiful/photogenic people than in real life, that includes men.
No, online dating puts more power into the hands of beautiful/photogenic people than in real life, that includes men.
Both are correct. It applies to men 10fold, however. Women are far more harsh critics when it comes to determining attractiveness of men [0]
Your average woman will still have a slew of options and general choice in their partner from online dating. Your average man simply does not.
<parent>'s point still stands.
[0] Evidence, of course: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
Your average woman will still have a slew of options and general choice in their partner from online dating. Your average man simply does not.
<parent>'s point still stands.
[0] Evidence, of course: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
[deleted]
"score something"? Really?
I used "something" to refer to "a relationship," which is a non-gendered thing, hence "something."
My own question would be, why are you reading negative meanings into my words when positive meanings for the same context are available?
My own question would be, why are you reading negative meanings into my words when positive meanings for the same context are available?
Poor choice of wording.
I'm 43. While this is no excuse, I suppose, I grew up in a time that was not as ridiculously P.C. as it is now. I find myself increasingly surrounded by this sort of sensitivity to any (even joking) conventionally-male analogies used when dating. I'm also a US Veteran and a member of a fraternity, two bastions of male-centrist worldview.
But also, just to be clear... Disgust is a non-argument. :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance
I'm 43. While this is no excuse, I suppose, I grew up in a time that was not as ridiculously P.C. as it is now. I find myself increasingly surrounded by this sort of sensitivity to any (even joking) conventionally-male analogies used when dating. I'm also a US Veteran and a member of a fraternity, two bastions of male-centrist worldview.
But also, just to be clear... Disgust is a non-argument. :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance
The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.
> The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.
It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.
It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.
Actually my genuine concern (not outrage) is primarily that someone on HN feels that the use of the word 'something' to describe a woman is remotely appropriate. I'm calling the poster out on that because I feel like if they don't have it pointed out to them that that is inappropriate they'll continue to think it's okay. It is not okay.
"Something" doesn't necessarily refer to a woman. Could refer to a relationship, ala:
I want something that will make my heart race, something that feels real
I want something that will make my heart race, something that feels real
I've never heard anyone describe a relationship as being 'out of their league'.
This is an extremely common expression, I thought. Google seems to indicate similarly with 847,000 results for the exact expression "out of (my OR your OR their) league".
So, not sure under what rock you've been. ;)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22out+of+(my+OR+your+OR+the...
So, not sure under what rock you've been. ;)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22out+of+(my+OR+your+OR+the...
Then you haven't spent much time in male-dominated online spaces
The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.
> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard
This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.
This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.
Well, I wasn't outraged before, but I have to admit that I may be feeling a touch of outrage now.
The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.
There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.
The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.
There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.
> changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.
The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message.
However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion.
CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views.
In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.
The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message.
However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion.
CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views.
In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.
That's an interesting explanation, and it's an astute way of describing tactics that are sometimes employed in political debates. But as applied to this case, I think it fails to address some key issues.
1. What reason would HG have to distract from the substantive content in the OP's comment?
2. HG was not the only person who found OP's comment objectionable. Do we all have ulterior motivess?
3. There are, I think, objective reasons for finding parts of OP's comment objectionable, which HG, myself, and others, have thoroughly expressed elsewhere in this thread. Do you have a response to these substantive points, or are you merely concerned about HG's reasons for raising them (and, perhaps, his./her tone in doing so)?
I for one think that OP's comment is interesting, and I have no interest in distracting from its substance. But I do hope to point out how some unfortunate, casual choice of words may have inadvertently caused harm to other members of our community.
I'd also point out that, like the dictionary attack that you describe, baselessly impugning an opponent's motivations is also a tried and true tactic for distracting others from the substance of what they have to say, without meaningfully engaging with it.
1. What reason would HG have to distract from the substantive content in the OP's comment?
2. HG was not the only person who found OP's comment objectionable. Do we all have ulterior motivess?
3. There are, I think, objective reasons for finding parts of OP's comment objectionable, which HG, myself, and others, have thoroughly expressed elsewhere in this thread. Do you have a response to these substantive points, or are you merely concerned about HG's reasons for raising them (and, perhaps, his./her tone in doing so)?
I for one think that OP's comment is interesting, and I have no interest in distracting from its substance. But I do hope to point out how some unfortunate, casual choice of words may have inadvertently caused harm to other members of our community.
I'd also point out that, like the dictionary attack that you describe, baselessly impugning an opponent's motivations is also a tried and true tactic for distracting others from the substance of what they have to say, without meaningfully engaging with it.
I don't suspect users here have conscious ulterior motives. I think that ____ (insert one of {media, communists, political elites, liberals, aliens, etc}) have conditioned knee-jerk language-policing. This has the side-effect of taking the current thread off topic while muting substantive discourse in this and future posts.
The dictionary attack has been practiced in media for a long time. Watch a famous 50s news anchor interview an atheist author (I can think of specifics, but I don't want to bias you). Back then it was obvious they were distorting what the interviewee was saying. The viewing audience wasn't stupid, they were complicit because they didn't agree with the atheist. Today this goes on, and occurs so regularly that no one cares if someone deliberately misunderstands something in order to be outraged. Actually whats even more telling is that this technique is a standard way to "communicate" political messages - just watch the campaigners.
I learned this dictionary problem while managing a startup with some employees who used a different dictionary than I. I'd say 80% of the conflict at work was due I say X while the other understood X'
Really if I had a way to efficiently and reliably transfer images in my head into theirs we would have saved countless hours and dollars
The dictionary attack has been practiced in media for a long time. Watch a famous 50s news anchor interview an atheist author (I can think of specifics, but I don't want to bias you). Back then it was obvious they were distorting what the interviewee was saying. The viewing audience wasn't stupid, they were complicit because they didn't agree with the atheist. Today this goes on, and occurs so regularly that no one cares if someone deliberately misunderstands something in order to be outraged. Actually whats even more telling is that this technique is a standard way to "communicate" political messages - just watch the campaigners.
I learned this dictionary problem while managing a startup with some employees who used a different dictionary than I. I'd say 80% of the conflict at work was due I say X while the other understood X'
Really if I had a way to efficiently and reliably transfer images in my head into theirs we would have saved countless hours and dollars
Wow. You've gone from accusing people of faking outrage, to accusing people of executing a CNN-style 'dictionary attack'(?), to suggesting an alien communist liberal conspiracy...
... and you think that OTHER people are taking the thread off-topic and muting substantive discourse?
... and you think that OTHER people are taking the thread off-topic and muting substantive discourse?
Do you really not see the humor in political elites & aliens? Or are you just providing the readership with a textbook example of becoming outraged by deliberately interpreting things wrongly?
I strongly agree with this criticism of the language (I winced reading it), but I also agree that the way it was criticised here was unnecessarily inflammatory.
There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
And that's the important issue, after all. We need to make sure that people who enjoy sexist language feel welcome in the technology industry and on forums like this, because otherwise we would so rarely get to hear their perspective.
That depends, do you want to feel smug and righteous, or do you actually want to convince people that what they're doing is harmful?
Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
Fair enough. I agree that the comment could have been more carefully worded. Note, though, that this does not (I hope!) explain the cool reception (to put it mildly) to my own comments in the same vein.
[deleted]
The comment was, well, offensively chauvinist.
It seems that any discussion of specific genders brings this out of some people.
The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).
The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).
I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment.
People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.
If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.
If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
Perhaps people find the content of the comment sufficiently high-quality that it overrides concerns about language.
It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.
It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.
"Score" is a term for successfully attracting a mate. It is not a power struggle per se but dating is a negotiation of sorts in order to reach a consensus about the nature of an interpersonal relationship between two individuals.
In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.
In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.
"Score" is one thing. "Score something" is, to me, much worse. I don't mind if guys want to speak casually among friends about women as conquests. But it strikes me as disconcerting that there are people who find this way of speaking so unobjectionable that they'd use it on a public forum like hacker news where, I had thought, the general expectation is that the discourse will maintain a certain level of quality and, needless to say, women are supposed to feel welcome and appreciated for their intellectual contributions.
What's even more disconcerting is that the comment that used this expression has been voted to the top (though it is otherwise a very good comment), and comments taking issue with the sexist language are voted into oblivion (so far).
What's even more disconcerting is that the comment that used this expression has been voted to the top (though it is otherwise a very good comment), and comments taking issue with the sexist language are voted into oblivion (so far).
I took it to mean that the 'something' being scored was a relationship. Maybe this is some kind of sexist dog whistle I'm not hearing but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt instead of trying to language police a substantive comment.
Hmm. Possibly. Obviously that's not how I read it, but I don't claim that my way is the only way it could have been read.
I can't say I agree with the choice you've assumed, though, between "language policing" a comment, and appreciating it for its substantive contribution. I think we're all sophisticated enough that we can recognize the substantive value of a comment, as I've tried to do, while also trying to suggest ways to build a more respectful community for everyone. In its best form, "language policing" will usually not be unconditional and vociferous condemnation, but rather a thoughtful sharing of perspectives and suggestion for incremental improvement.
This is the very ethos of this forum in so many other arenas--tech, business, often politics--but I'm often disappointed that the prevailing attitude here is so closed when it comes to issues of gender politics (for lack of a better term). Part of the issue may be that these issues are not always thoughtfully raised, and there can sometimes be an unwelcome tendency towards outrage (in both directions). But I think it would be a shame if we didn't keep trying to improve ourselves, and the tech community at large to make for a more welcoming community.
Edit: As others have pointed out elsewhere, one does not normally describe a relationship as "out of your league." That's a description typically bestowed upon people. I suspect this is why I and others have interpreted the comment they way we have. I don't think this entirely rules out the possibility you raised about the original commenter's intent, but I do think it means that my interpretation is probably correct--or at least eminently defensible.
I'd also add that the original commenter's intent does not matter much to me. I was never here to impugn his or her character in the first place. My point has only ever been that the comment, regardless of its precise intended meaning, reasonably communicates a certain disrespect for women.
I can't say I agree with the choice you've assumed, though, between "language policing" a comment, and appreciating it for its substantive contribution. I think we're all sophisticated enough that we can recognize the substantive value of a comment, as I've tried to do, while also trying to suggest ways to build a more respectful community for everyone. In its best form, "language policing" will usually not be unconditional and vociferous condemnation, but rather a thoughtful sharing of perspectives and suggestion for incremental improvement.
This is the very ethos of this forum in so many other arenas--tech, business, often politics--but I'm often disappointed that the prevailing attitude here is so closed when it comes to issues of gender politics (for lack of a better term). Part of the issue may be that these issues are not always thoughtfully raised, and there can sometimes be an unwelcome tendency towards outrage (in both directions). But I think it would be a shame if we didn't keep trying to improve ourselves, and the tech community at large to make for a more welcoming community.
Edit: As others have pointed out elsewhere, one does not normally describe a relationship as "out of your league." That's a description typically bestowed upon people. I suspect this is why I and others have interpreted the comment they way we have. I don't think this entirely rules out the possibility you raised about the original commenter's intent, but I do think it means that my interpretation is probably correct--or at least eminently defensible.
I'd also add that the original commenter's intent does not matter much to me. I was never here to impugn his or her character in the first place. My point has only ever been that the comment, regardless of its precise intended meaning, reasonably communicates a certain disrespect for women.
Yes. This exactly.
Then again, you used the term "insane" inappropriately. To a certain extent, you have to accept some slang during discussion. And, in addition to the fact that power is a core concept in sociology, what dating dynamics are "meant to be" (whatever that means) doesn't really matter.
No, the scary thing here is that s/he does NOT have to accept ANY slang during discussion AND can declare my entire comment invalid (while using public shame) based on what was (to him/her) a poor choice of wording (which, perhaps it was, but disgust is not an argument)
> Women aren't points on a scoreboard
Ideally, no. But men often use sports analogies when discussing getting a woman to actually date them, which is a quite difficult goal. I apologize for any offense.
> dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle
Here you lost me. If you don't think there's often a power struggle in the early stages of dating, I don't know what reality you're living, because it's not mine.
Ideally, no. But men often use sports analogies when discussing getting a woman to actually date them, which is a quite difficult goal. I apologize for any offense.
> dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle
Here you lost me. If you don't think there's often a power struggle in the early stages of dating, I don't know what reality you're living, because it's not mine.
> One area where there was a lot of debate was the amount of time one should wait to text back. Several people subscribed to the notion of doubling the response time. (They write back in five minutes, you wait 10, etc.) This way you achieve the upper hand and constantly seem busier and less available than your counterpart. Others thought waiting just a few minutes was enough to prove you had something important in your life besides your phone. Some thought you should double, but occasionally throw in a quick response to not seem so regimented (nothing too long, though!). Some people swore by waiting 1.25 times longer. Others argued they found three minutes to be just right. There were also those who were so fed up with the games that they thought receiving timely responses free of games was refreshing and showed confidence.
Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys these games? If I'm available, read your message and have time to answer, you'll receive an answer immediately. Pretending to be busy, upper hands - I get the idea, yet I really don't think it's preferable to being yourself.
Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys these games? If I'm available, read your message and have time to answer, you'll receive an answer immediately. Pretending to be busy, upper hands - I get the idea, yet I really don't think it's preferable to being yourself.
Also, doubling response time every time is essentially exponential backoff, a strategy I mainly use when trying to let an uncomfortable discussion die gracefully.
I think HN uses a variant of that to prevent long back-and-forth discussions.
You mean, if HN detects a long back-forth, it'll not show your post to anyone for a while after you've submitted it?
That's quite interesting. Is this used anywhere else on the web?
That's quite interesting. Is this used anywhere else on the web?
The reply link won't appear immediately for deeply nested comments. Initially a minute or two, eventually many minutes. The comments still appear as fast as you allow with your "delay" setting in your profile (2 minutes for me: time to edit, and time to delete the stupid messages that felt good to write but that I shouldn't have written).
Sometimes (always?) the reply link doesn't show up in the comment thread, but shows up when you visit the individual comment through its permalink. That's probably a bug though.
Always and I think it's deliberate. Those who know can keep it going, but it requires deliberate effort (just enough more than clicking reply) that it might stop some of the back and forth ("Do I really need to put in this much effort for this conversation?").
No, it's on purpose. PG added it years ago, presumably as a speed bump.
In rapid back-and-forth discussions, the HN interface won't show the "reply" link for a short cool down period.
So it's not letting you post (temporarily), instead of hiding your post after you have submitted it.
So it's not letting you post (temporarily), instead of hiding your post after you have submitted it.
[deleted]
> Who enjoys these games?
I don't know if anyone really does. However, like me, most people probably like to think there's a right way and a wrong way of doing this, and that it's not all just a random coin flip where the house always wins. If someone we're attracted to apparently dislikes us for no discernible reason, it's comforting to think it's simply because we didn't follow the commonly accepted rules.
I don't know if anyone really does. However, like me, most people probably like to think there's a right way and a wrong way of doing this, and that it's not all just a random coin flip where the house always wins. If someone we're attracted to apparently dislikes us for no discernible reason, it's comforting to think it's simply because we didn't follow the commonly accepted rules.
But what if it's not that they are "commonly accepted rules" -- as if it was a conscious decision -- but more about how the brain is hardwired to act? What if the relatively simple rule of "if you're interested, just reply already, dammit!" doesn't accurately model how human sexual interactions work? Maybe we do a lot of signalling, some overt, some unconscious, some non-visual, just like it happens with other animals?
I have no idea whether they're commonly accepted rules. Like most other cargo cult daters I like to think there are rules, and that they mean something, but when all is said and done I'm pretty sure you're right. It's a complex interplay of roles and traits shaped in part by evolution to weed out unfit candidates. On that we built our cargo cult: I have no idea what I'm doing, but when interacting with a potential love interest I'll mimic the actions that have apparently served others so well, and even when they make absolutely no sense they'll probably still work. I suspect a lot of other interactions in the digital world can be partially explained by cargo cults based on evolved behaviour.
Conclusion: I might not be the only person who has no idea what he's doing when it comes to dating, so a lot of us are faking it and hoping for the best.
Conclusion: I might not be the only person who has no idea what he's doing when it comes to dating, so a lot of us are faking it and hoping for the best.
> It's a complex interplay of roles and traits shaped in part by evolution to weed out unfit candidates.
That would only apply to procreation, surely, not dating.
That would only apply to procreation, surely, not dating.
Dating might be entertainment to some, but I'm sure it's procreation to most.
In modern times dating is the primary mating ritual between individuals.
You know the old story:
Whether you're a lion or a gazelle, you'd better start running
And who enjoys running? Nobody. It's just the way things are. Sex is hard work, in any possible way, throughout the whole animal kingdom.
Whether you're a lion or a gazelle, you'd better start running
And who enjoys running? Nobody. It's just the way things are. Sex is hard work, in any possible way, throughout the whole animal kingdom.
Playing games isn't new to the dating scene - among people who don't date well.
This didn't start with texting - phone calls, second dates, rules about a certain number of dates before sex. All bullshit.
People who play those games are not people who are good at dating and never have been. They seem to think everything is a power play, or a formula stat-keeping event. You can't build a functional relationship with someone you are always attempting to keep score with.
This didn't start with texting - phone calls, second dates, rules about a certain number of dates before sex. All bullshit.
People who play those games are not people who are good at dating and never have been. They seem to think everything is a power play, or a formula stat-keeping event. You can't build a functional relationship with someone you are always attempting to keep score with.
> Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys these games?
I've met people who enjoy these games as a source of power. They like knowing they have power over someone else and their emotions. What's perhaps most disturbing is that such games are them being themselves.
I've met people who enjoy these games as a source of power. They like knowing they have power over someone else and their emotions. What's perhaps most disturbing is that such games are them being themselves.
Waiting for a particular person's attention is like overeating: it made sense in hunter-gatherer tribes, but it's not the best idea in modern cities.
Here, this issue is that of availability. Given that it is sometimes difficult to gauge the desirability of a prospective partner, one metric is how eager they seem to be. If the other replies quickly, this is an indication that they are quite eager, which suggests that they have few encounters, and that therefore few have evaluated this person as attractive. On the contrary, a bit of a lapse before a response suggests that the other feels a bit of indifference toward you, and that therefore the person is likely to have more encounters, and therefore is considered more attractive.
You can be forgiven for wishing for more simplicity, given that relationships in most media are depicted rather one-dimensionally, as the result of unambiguous and mutual attraction. This is not how it tends to work in the real world.