Both Roissy and Aunt Haley have written blogs today on text game. The simple fact is, in today's world, texting is the primary means of interpersonal distance communication. Phone calls are rare and mostly unnecessary. E-mails are too cumbersome and inconvenient. Contrarily, texts are short, quick, and direct. As such, the art of text game is to capitalize on the positive qualities of texting while minimizing the losses associated with the limitations of the medium.
As someone who has been texting and IMing girls for years, I've directly experienced the impact of most of the pros and cons of texting. From my experiences, the most important rule of text game is: always have an agenda. The reason for this is that texting is a poor substitute for practically anything else. Given the extremely limited amount of information communicated, texting is a poor way to attempt any serious attraction or comfort building. It is also a very poor medium for conversations of any depth. Instead, it is best used mainly for the following things:
Invitations/Propositions
This one is self-explanatory. The purpose of your communication is to invite a girl to a specific event. There are two ways to handle this sort of text. Either you can send a full detail invitation which requires only a confirmation text, or you can send a minimal detail invitation that requires the girl to ask for additional details if she's interested.
Frame Communication
The purpose of a frame communication text is to convey some aspect of your personality to a girl. Teasing a girl, ignoring a direct question, referring to a girl in a certain manner, or reframing a question or statement are all examples of dominant attraction-building frame communications.
Connection Pings
The purpose of these texts is to establish a brief moment of connection and possibly to determine a girl's present emotional state towards you and/or life. These can be as direct as, "Hi how r u?" or more indirect in the form of a non-needy trial/feeler text.
Information Gathering
These texts are used when you wish to find out something. Often the entire exchange is merely a question and an answer. In other cases, this is used as a prelude to a date invitation. The key to a good information gathering text is brevity and clarity. Phrase the question in the simplest unmistakable form possible.
Information Transmission
Occasionally there is a change of plan or some intervening circumstance that will require you to inform a girl of something. In these cases, keep it simple and communicate no more than you need to. The point is simply to keep her informed.
Anything else besides those things is mere unnecessary fluff. Tight game requires one to completely eliminate needless fluff. Whenever you send a text, always know exactly what the purpose of the communication is. If there's any doubt about whether you should send a certain text, or why you're sending a certain text, just delete it. The main point of text game is to set up a date in order to spend some quality one-on-one time with a girl. All other aspects of text game are simply a means to that end. The best way to tighten up your text game? Stick to the basics, always have a specific agenda for every single message you send, and don't spend much time or energy texting. Texting should always serve to enhance your life--never to distract you from living it.
Showing posts with label Social Interactions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Interactions. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Silence: A Subtle, Yet Powerful Ally
Silence isn't something that many of us are naturally appreciative of, particularly in social situations. So accustomed to an endless flow of words, it's easy to feel a growing tension whenever silence lingers during a date or in a group setting. As I learn to relax my pace of life and social flow, I have begun to develop a deep appreciation for social silence. While it might first seem like something to be avoided, a fuller analysis reveals that there are more instances where silence confers positive benefits than where it hinders relationship.
Game Application: On first dates, especially, silence is a very powerful thing. Once attraction has already been established, allowing silence to linger serves to do several things. First, the tension that naturally accompanies periods of silence serves to further build and heighten attraction. Second, by demonstrating that you are comfortable with being silent around your date, you give her implicit permission to also relax and enjoy simply being; after the first few times, this works to develop more comfort. Third, by not constantly carrying and directing the conversation, there is space for more two-sided interactions, which is great for establishing real connection. Fourth, the periods of silence offer space for non-verbal communication, which is generally more powerful and efficacious than verbal communication, especially in any romantic setting. Lastly, the simple fact that you aren't saying anything means you aren't killing attraction by saying too much or saying the wrong things.
Non-Game Applications: Silence is what affords people space to think more deeply, sort through their own thoughts and feelings and make internal progress on a topic. As such, leaving ample room for contemplation is a vital technique which is usable within a broad array of settings. In a teaching setting, leaving more room for answers encourages further thinking by those who aren't quite as swift to think of an answer, or who are more hesitant to express their thoughts. The more silence you allow, the greater the depth of learning that can occur. Similarly, in a coaching or counseling relationship, space is one of the most crucial elements of the relationship. In both instances, since any real change must emerge from within, it is crucial for a client to be fully aware of their own thoughts and feelings, which only occurs with ample mental space. Even on a personal level, silence is an indispensible ally. Embracing silence always results in a greater depth of personal peace and a higher level of awareness. As a spiritual practice, silence is one of the most challenging and yet most valuable rituals an individual can engage in. Whether used for the purposes of prayer, meditation or simply stillness, silence provides the space needed for a soul to connect with the divine.
In all these instances, silence is something that is incredibly powerful. The slight discomfort that might be felt initially can hardly compare with the rich benefits offered to one who appreciates and fully utilizes silence. In social situations, silence is not golden simply because it is the absence of speech. Instead, silence itself is a positive good that is underappreciated and often underutilized. Only as a person begins to see the positive power that silence has to offer, can that silence be harnessed for personal and social enrichment. Once that understanding is reached, however, there is scarcely a limit to its potential for positive effect.
Game Application: On first dates, especially, silence is a very powerful thing. Once attraction has already been established, allowing silence to linger serves to do several things. First, the tension that naturally accompanies periods of silence serves to further build and heighten attraction. Second, by demonstrating that you are comfortable with being silent around your date, you give her implicit permission to also relax and enjoy simply being; after the first few times, this works to develop more comfort. Third, by not constantly carrying and directing the conversation, there is space for more two-sided interactions, which is great for establishing real connection. Fourth, the periods of silence offer space for non-verbal communication, which is generally more powerful and efficacious than verbal communication, especially in any romantic setting. Lastly, the simple fact that you aren't saying anything means you aren't killing attraction by saying too much or saying the wrong things.
Non-Game Applications: Silence is what affords people space to think more deeply, sort through their own thoughts and feelings and make internal progress on a topic. As such, leaving ample room for contemplation is a vital technique which is usable within a broad array of settings. In a teaching setting, leaving more room for answers encourages further thinking by those who aren't quite as swift to think of an answer, or who are more hesitant to express their thoughts. The more silence you allow, the greater the depth of learning that can occur. Similarly, in a coaching or counseling relationship, space is one of the most crucial elements of the relationship. In both instances, since any real change must emerge from within, it is crucial for a client to be fully aware of their own thoughts and feelings, which only occurs with ample mental space. Even on a personal level, silence is an indispensible ally. Embracing silence always results in a greater depth of personal peace and a higher level of awareness. As a spiritual practice, silence is one of the most challenging and yet most valuable rituals an individual can engage in. Whether used for the purposes of prayer, meditation or simply stillness, silence provides the space needed for a soul to connect with the divine.
In all these instances, silence is something that is incredibly powerful. The slight discomfort that might be felt initially can hardly compare with the rich benefits offered to one who appreciates and fully utilizes silence. In social situations, silence is not golden simply because it is the absence of speech. Instead, silence itself is a positive good that is underappreciated and often underutilized. Only as a person begins to see the positive power that silence has to offer, can that silence be harnessed for personal and social enrichment. Once that understanding is reached, however, there is scarcely a limit to its potential for positive effect.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Facades We Use
With some friends, deep and meaningful conversation flows naturally. With other friends, the conversational depth almost never exceeds that of a puddle. In the past few days I've had some extremely rich and fulfilling conversations with friends. One friend and I were discussing how people connect with each other. There is always the general social conversation that most of society favors: small-talk, polite inquiries into well-being, topics deemed of general interest. While that helps keep things comfortable and light, in many ways it's a way of avoiding deeper connection.
Though many people secretly crave deeper connection, most people also are fearful of being genuine or vulnerable with others. In group settings, this insecurity is even more pronounced. While people might be willing to discuss things that are more personal in a one-on-one context, in a group setting there is much more general hesitance to express one's true thoughts and feelings. Of course, apart from some expression of one's true thoughts and feelings, neither friendship nor deeper connection can occur between two people.
Facades of all sorts inhibit such connection. Whenever we act or speak in such a way as to disguise our true thoughts or feelings, we are utilizing a facade. Fundamentally, there are two types of facades. Some people have cultivated an unconscious facade. They are not aware of the social-exterior they display (or at least attempt to display) to others. Most people who have an unconscious facade also expect others to utilize a similar facade, and actually have a harder time connecting with those who do not have a similar facade. Such people generally feel a desire to connect with others, but are unaware of their own insecurities and fears which prevent deeper connection.
Another sort of facade is the intentionally-crafted sort. This type of facade is not an accidental or subconscious creation, but instead is consciously developed with the explicit aim of effecting social interactions. Those who have crafted facades generally possess a deeper awareness of their own mannerisms, behaviors, and speech patterns as well as a heightened awareness of social norms and the perceptions of others. As a result of "trying on" various personalities and testing various mannerisms, they generally are fairly easily able to see through the facades of others, and also are more able to manipulate the perceptions of others.
The other kind of person, the most rare sort, is the truly genuine person. Such a person generally does not utilize a facade of any sort in social interactions. Truly genuine people generally are genuine for one of three reasons:
Some are completely oblivious to social norms and perceptions and therefore violate all sorts of social norms simply on accident. These sorts of people tend to be social misfits who aren't necessarily disliked but generally have a harder time fitting in with any social group.
Some people are extremely naturally assertive and therefore take no thought for whatever social norms they violate. They do what they like, say whatever they're thinking and simply leave their words and actions unfiltered. These people are often perceived as jerks and assholes, but also are admired and loved by some, simply for their unapologetic (and often raw) genuineness.
Some people have completely worked through their own insecurities, and as a result of having a deep self-acceptance, in meekness they offer themselves to the world as they are, unconcerned with the judgments of others. These kinds of people are often aware of social norms, but neither adhere to the social norms, nor flagrantly violate them. They have a certain grace and easy-going presence about them.
Those people who are very genuine have a greater capacity for developing deeper and more lasting connections based on genuine respect. Yet, the path of being genuine is not an easy one to walk. In a culture that is quite superficial and expects a certain level of superficiality, it takes boldness and humility to be aware of social norms without being enslaved to them. Yet, the eschewing of facades is a necessary prerequisite to connecting with people more fully. Both the fear-based unconscious facades and the crafted and calculated facades generally do more harm than good. They keep people socially "safe" while simultaneously preventing people from building the relationships they desire.
Though many people secretly crave deeper connection, most people also are fearful of being genuine or vulnerable with others. In group settings, this insecurity is even more pronounced. While people might be willing to discuss things that are more personal in a one-on-one context, in a group setting there is much more general hesitance to express one's true thoughts and feelings. Of course, apart from some expression of one's true thoughts and feelings, neither friendship nor deeper connection can occur between two people.
Facades of all sorts inhibit such connection. Whenever we act or speak in such a way as to disguise our true thoughts or feelings, we are utilizing a facade. Fundamentally, there are two types of facades. Some people have cultivated an unconscious facade. They are not aware of the social-exterior they display (or at least attempt to display) to others. Most people who have an unconscious facade also expect others to utilize a similar facade, and actually have a harder time connecting with those who do not have a similar facade. Such people generally feel a desire to connect with others, but are unaware of their own insecurities and fears which prevent deeper connection.
Another sort of facade is the intentionally-crafted sort. This type of facade is not an accidental or subconscious creation, but instead is consciously developed with the explicit aim of effecting social interactions. Those who have crafted facades generally possess a deeper awareness of their own mannerisms, behaviors, and speech patterns as well as a heightened awareness of social norms and the perceptions of others. As a result of "trying on" various personalities and testing various mannerisms, they generally are fairly easily able to see through the facades of others, and also are more able to manipulate the perceptions of others.
The other kind of person, the most rare sort, is the truly genuine person. Such a person generally does not utilize a facade of any sort in social interactions. Truly genuine people generally are genuine for one of three reasons:
Some are completely oblivious to social norms and perceptions and therefore violate all sorts of social norms simply on accident. These sorts of people tend to be social misfits who aren't necessarily disliked but generally have a harder time fitting in with any social group.
Some people are extremely naturally assertive and therefore take no thought for whatever social norms they violate. They do what they like, say whatever they're thinking and simply leave their words and actions unfiltered. These people are often perceived as jerks and assholes, but also are admired and loved by some, simply for their unapologetic (and often raw) genuineness.
Some people have completely worked through their own insecurities, and as a result of having a deep self-acceptance, in meekness they offer themselves to the world as they are, unconcerned with the judgments of others. These kinds of people are often aware of social norms, but neither adhere to the social norms, nor flagrantly violate them. They have a certain grace and easy-going presence about them.
Those people who are very genuine have a greater capacity for developing deeper and more lasting connections based on genuine respect. Yet, the path of being genuine is not an easy one to walk. In a culture that is quite superficial and expects a certain level of superficiality, it takes boldness and humility to be aware of social norms without being enslaved to them. Yet, the eschewing of facades is a necessary prerequisite to connecting with people more fully. Both the fear-based unconscious facades and the crafted and calculated facades generally do more harm than good. They keep people socially "safe" while simultaneously preventing people from building the relationships they desire.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Male Attractiveness Relativity
A man's attractiveness often varies from group to group. While a woman's attractiveness is fairly constant and unchangable, a man's attractiveness is both malleable and perceptually relative. How he is perceived (by both men and women) depends on who he is seen with and what his interactions are like. Those who are students of social dynamics and human attractiveness know that there are three major factors that signal a man's attractiveness in the dating market:
- Leader of men
- Protector of loved ones
- Pre-selected by women
Women mostly judge a man's attractiveness by his social prowess. A man who displays confidence, is charming, well-connected, and is admired by others is seen as very attractive. However, women rarely judge a man's attractiveness directly. Typically, there are many mental shortcuts used to quickly assess a man's attractiveness. This is one of the reasons why pick-up artist materials work well. They teach shortcuts that enhance one's perceptual sexual market value. Alpha mimcry techniques work quite well to fool people short term. While there is a difference between apparent connectedness and genuine connectedness, the heuristics used to measure connectedness and confidence do not allow for such a distinction to be made. A few moments of observation are used to judge a man's attractiveness, though such a judgment may not be accurate.
For example, if a man enters a venue and immediately walks over to talk to someone, as an observer you have no way of knowing whether this fellow is already friends with that person, or if they are a perfect stranger to him. If a man walks into the room with a pretty girl next to him, he immediately appears desirable, even though she may just be a friend or his sister. Due to the use of heuristics in judging a man's attractiveness, first impressions are incredibly vital. While making a great first impression and subsequently not dropping the ball are the key to picking up strangers, the game is entirely different within longer-term social groups. Yet, the same fundamental rules still apply.
When extremely limited information is available, the first impression is practically all the information a person or a group of people have about a man. However, with each new interaction, more information is acquired and a man's attractiveness is reassessed. First impressions are either further established or discarded. Someone may make a great first impression but subsequently show themselves to be less confident, charming or connected than initially perceived. Alternately, sometimes a person makes a poor first impression but consistently shows themselves to be a high quality person in future interactions. First impressions are not discarded easily, but they certainly are not etched in stone.
Because each group is different, the same man may be perceived very differently by various groups. Accordingly, his relative attractiveness may diverge greatly from group to group. At work, a man may seem very distant, detached and anti-social, while with his college buddies he is the life of the party. A man may be seen as very positive and uplifting person by church friends, while viewed as cynical and sarcastic by his family. These perceptual differences are often partially rooted in reality and partially skewed by inaccurate perceptions or extenuating circumstances. Observers who notice a man's interaction with one group may reach extremely difference conclusions about him than observers witnessing him interacting with a different group.
Is one set of observations a more accurate determinant of his attractiveness than another? I think not. Instead, it seems clear that a man's attractiveness genuinely varies. A man who acts anti-socially at work may genuinely be quite unattractive within that context. But, the same man may be extremely attractive when he is with a peer group that includes several hot girls he's dated, some cool friends who genuinely look up to him, and a few people who are very happy to have him around. Not only are perceptions of a man's attractiveness quite subjective, but his very attractiveness may vary greatly from one group to the next.
For those men who seek to apply Game as more than a short-term fix, they have to seek their ideal element and capitalize on that. Where is a man perceived as the most attractive? Why is he perceived that way by them? How can he capitalize on attraction-builders and minimize attraction-killers? Inner Game is about knowing yourself, your strengths and your weaknesses, and utilizing that knowledge to your advantage.
- Leader of men
- Protector of loved ones
- Pre-selected by women
Women mostly judge a man's attractiveness by his social prowess. A man who displays confidence, is charming, well-connected, and is admired by others is seen as very attractive. However, women rarely judge a man's attractiveness directly. Typically, there are many mental shortcuts used to quickly assess a man's attractiveness. This is one of the reasons why pick-up artist materials work well. They teach shortcuts that enhance one's perceptual sexual market value. Alpha mimcry techniques work quite well to fool people short term. While there is a difference between apparent connectedness and genuine connectedness, the heuristics used to measure connectedness and confidence do not allow for such a distinction to be made. A few moments of observation are used to judge a man's attractiveness, though such a judgment may not be accurate.
For example, if a man enters a venue and immediately walks over to talk to someone, as an observer you have no way of knowing whether this fellow is already friends with that person, or if they are a perfect stranger to him. If a man walks into the room with a pretty girl next to him, he immediately appears desirable, even though she may just be a friend or his sister. Due to the use of heuristics in judging a man's attractiveness, first impressions are incredibly vital. While making a great first impression and subsequently not dropping the ball are the key to picking up strangers, the game is entirely different within longer-term social groups. Yet, the same fundamental rules still apply.
When extremely limited information is available, the first impression is practically all the information a person or a group of people have about a man. However, with each new interaction, more information is acquired and a man's attractiveness is reassessed. First impressions are either further established or discarded. Someone may make a great first impression but subsequently show themselves to be less confident, charming or connected than initially perceived. Alternately, sometimes a person makes a poor first impression but consistently shows themselves to be a high quality person in future interactions. First impressions are not discarded easily, but they certainly are not etched in stone.
Because each group is different, the same man may be perceived very differently by various groups. Accordingly, his relative attractiveness may diverge greatly from group to group. At work, a man may seem very distant, detached and anti-social, while with his college buddies he is the life of the party. A man may be seen as very positive and uplifting person by church friends, while viewed as cynical and sarcastic by his family. These perceptual differences are often partially rooted in reality and partially skewed by inaccurate perceptions or extenuating circumstances. Observers who notice a man's interaction with one group may reach extremely difference conclusions about him than observers witnessing him interacting with a different group.
Is one set of observations a more accurate determinant of his attractiveness than another? I think not. Instead, it seems clear that a man's attractiveness genuinely varies. A man who acts anti-socially at work may genuinely be quite unattractive within that context. But, the same man may be extremely attractive when he is with a peer group that includes several hot girls he's dated, some cool friends who genuinely look up to him, and a few people who are very happy to have him around. Not only are perceptions of a man's attractiveness quite subjective, but his very attractiveness may vary greatly from one group to the next.
For those men who seek to apply Game as more than a short-term fix, they have to seek their ideal element and capitalize on that. Where is a man perceived as the most attractive? Why is he perceived that way by them? How can he capitalize on attraction-builders and minimize attraction-killers? Inner Game is about knowing yourself, your strengths and your weaknesses, and utilizing that knowledge to your advantage.
Friday, June 25, 2010
What Women Think They Want
Recently, I went out to dinner with some friends of mine. There were four of us. The first fellow, a stable middle-aged guy (SMG) is quite soundly in the beta provider category. He has a great place to live, is very responsible with his money, throws good parties and is pretty easy to get along with. The second fellow is a player extraordinaire (PE). He has loads of natural game, a well established reputation as a bad boy and a fun, completely comfortable persona. The last person, player extraordinaire's girlfriend, is a nice but fairly typical American woman (TAW).
SMG was extremely excited because he had a blind date set up for the next weekend. He was on his phone texting this girl and setting up a time and location for the date when we first arrived at the restaurant. This was a pretty big thing for him, since he's not very assertive towards women and hasn't been on a date in quite a long time. So, for the first while, he was telling us about this girl and how his friend set him up on a date with her. He was telling us that they're planning on going to a nice restaurant for lunch. Next, he asks this question.
SMG: "Do you think I should get her some flowers?"
TAW: "You should definitely get her some flowers."
Me: "Why in the world would you get a girl flowers on a first date?"
TAW looks at me quite taken aback. She says: "You don't have a girlfriend, do you?"
Me: "Nope. I broke up with her a few weeks ago. She wasn't quite cutting it."
Pointing to PE, I ask her, "Did he get you any flowers on your first date?"
PE, chiming in: "We didn't exactly have a first date."
Next he goes on to casually mention that even though they've been dating for about 7 or 8 months, he's never gotten her flowers, never taken her out for dinner, and typically gets her to pay for him for most things they do. TAW really doesn't say much about any of this, but goes back to the initial question and addresses SMG again.
TAW: "Girls love flowers. You should get her some."
PE: "Or you could get her one flower. A flower that is just beginning to blossom, whose petals are just starting to open up."
PE launches into a story about one girl that he brought flowers for, who ended up being deathly allergic to most types of flowers. She was also allergic to chocolate, so he was quite happy he didn't bring a box of those.
The whole evening was quite interesting, and we had a lot of other interesting interchanges. I am endlessly amused by the vast divergence between what women think that they want and what they actually desire. TAW clearly seemed to think that she liked flowers, romance and nice gestures. Yet, the clear evidence of her relationship shows that none of those things actually matter to her. Instead, she was utterly enchanted with a fellow who is the furthest from "nice" or "romantic" possible. Women swoon for desirable men who have an overabundance of psychosocial dominance. They always think they want romantic gestures, but they actually find a lack of romantic expression, from a fun and engaging man with options, to be far more irresistible.
SMG was extremely excited because he had a blind date set up for the next weekend. He was on his phone texting this girl and setting up a time and location for the date when we first arrived at the restaurant. This was a pretty big thing for him, since he's not very assertive towards women and hasn't been on a date in quite a long time. So, for the first while, he was telling us about this girl and how his friend set him up on a date with her. He was telling us that they're planning on going to a nice restaurant for lunch. Next, he asks this question.
SMG: "Do you think I should get her some flowers?"
TAW: "You should definitely get her some flowers."
Me: "Why in the world would you get a girl flowers on a first date?"
TAW looks at me quite taken aback. She says: "You don't have a girlfriend, do you?"
Me: "Nope. I broke up with her a few weeks ago. She wasn't quite cutting it."
Pointing to PE, I ask her, "Did he get you any flowers on your first date?"
PE, chiming in: "We didn't exactly have a first date."
Next he goes on to casually mention that even though they've been dating for about 7 or 8 months, he's never gotten her flowers, never taken her out for dinner, and typically gets her to pay for him for most things they do. TAW really doesn't say much about any of this, but goes back to the initial question and addresses SMG again.
TAW: "Girls love flowers. You should get her some."
PE: "Or you could get her one flower. A flower that is just beginning to blossom, whose petals are just starting to open up."
PE launches into a story about one girl that he brought flowers for, who ended up being deathly allergic to most types of flowers. She was also allergic to chocolate, so he was quite happy he didn't bring a box of those.
The whole evening was quite interesting, and we had a lot of other interesting interchanges. I am endlessly amused by the vast divergence between what women think that they want and what they actually desire. TAW clearly seemed to think that she liked flowers, romance and nice gestures. Yet, the clear evidence of her relationship shows that none of those things actually matter to her. Instead, she was utterly enchanted with a fellow who is the furthest from "nice" or "romantic" possible. Women swoon for desirable men who have an overabundance of psychosocial dominance. They always think they want romantic gestures, but they actually find a lack of romantic expression, from a fun and engaging man with options, to be far more irresistible.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
American Poverty Isn't About Lack of Resources
The myth that poverty is a result of underprivilege is a common one. However, it is also a myth which is far removed from truth and reality. Homelessness in America, especially, is something that is very rarely caused by systemic dislocation or oppression. Instead, in most instances in America, both poverty and homelessness are the result of consistently poor lifestyle choices. I have worked in various ministries with my church that reach out to the poor, and I also go out of my way to help those who are in need whenever I can. Because of this, I have a lot of firsthand experience dealing with those who are in need.
Generally, my policy is that if a poor person asks me for something, I will do my best to offer them something, within reason. Typically, I shy away from giving cash, since monetary gifts often are used to support drug and alcohol addictions. However, I am more than happy to take a poor person and buy them a meal, if they are genuinely hungry. My stance on this stems directly from the words of Jesus Christ. "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." (Matt. 5:42)
Last night, I stopped at a gas station near my home, to fill up my car. Leaning on one of the garbage cans was a middle-aged fellow who looked fairly unkempt and wore bedraggled clothes. As I stepped out of my car, he looked at me with a pained expression and mumbled in broken English, "I haven't had a thing to eat all day. Could you give me a little money?" I wasn't feeling in a particularly hospitable mood, so I just simply looked at him and shook my head. However, while I was pumping gas, I didn't feel quite right giving him nothing at all. I quickly glanced around my car to see if I had anything to offer him. There was a half-empty box of goldfish crackers and a full cup of warm tea that I'd just gotten from Starbucks.
After pumping gas, I walked over to the fellow and asked if he was hungry. He replied, "I haven't had anything to eat today. If you could just give me a little money... maybe a dollar or two." I told him, "Would you like some crackers? I have a box of crackers, if you're hungry." He looked a little bit perplexed or confused and said again, "Could you just give me a little money? I'll take anything." I repeated myself, "I have a box of goldfish crackers, if you want. There are plenty of crackers in the box." He looked at me rather unenthusiastically. Thinking that maybe he was confused or didn't know what crackers are, I took the box out of my car and brought them over to him. He took the crackers rather wistfully and set them down next to him. I asked him if he was thirsty, and offered him my tea. But, he didn't seem too excited by that proposition.
He mumbled some other things that I couldn't understand. After fruitlessly trying to converse with him for a minute or two, I patted him on the shoulder and told him, "God bless you. Enjoy your crackers." As I walked back towards my car, he began to mumble something else, and then he told me, "You're an asshole." I hopped in my car and left. I fail to see how offering him some food and a nice warm drink could possibly be considered asshole behavior. It only made sense if he didn't actually want food, but instead was only seeking money. It simply supports my hypothesis that most homeless and poor people aren't primarily in their condition because of mere circumstances. Time after time, this sort of thing is precisely what I experience in dealing with such people. More than 60% of the time, they are lying ingrates. I certainly care about their plight, but in such cases the issue isn't lack of resources. The issue is poor lifestyle choices and a pathetic attitude. American poverty isn't really about a lack of resources much at all.
Generally, my policy is that if a poor person asks me for something, I will do my best to offer them something, within reason. Typically, I shy away from giving cash, since monetary gifts often are used to support drug and alcohol addictions. However, I am more than happy to take a poor person and buy them a meal, if they are genuinely hungry. My stance on this stems directly from the words of Jesus Christ. "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." (Matt. 5:42)
Last night, I stopped at a gas station near my home, to fill up my car. Leaning on one of the garbage cans was a middle-aged fellow who looked fairly unkempt and wore bedraggled clothes. As I stepped out of my car, he looked at me with a pained expression and mumbled in broken English, "I haven't had a thing to eat all day. Could you give me a little money?" I wasn't feeling in a particularly hospitable mood, so I just simply looked at him and shook my head. However, while I was pumping gas, I didn't feel quite right giving him nothing at all. I quickly glanced around my car to see if I had anything to offer him. There was a half-empty box of goldfish crackers and a full cup of warm tea that I'd just gotten from Starbucks.
After pumping gas, I walked over to the fellow and asked if he was hungry. He replied, "I haven't had anything to eat today. If you could just give me a little money... maybe a dollar or two." I told him, "Would you like some crackers? I have a box of crackers, if you're hungry." He looked a little bit perplexed or confused and said again, "Could you just give me a little money? I'll take anything." I repeated myself, "I have a box of goldfish crackers, if you want. There are plenty of crackers in the box." He looked at me rather unenthusiastically. Thinking that maybe he was confused or didn't know what crackers are, I took the box out of my car and brought them over to him. He took the crackers rather wistfully and set them down next to him. I asked him if he was thirsty, and offered him my tea. But, he didn't seem too excited by that proposition.
He mumbled some other things that I couldn't understand. After fruitlessly trying to converse with him for a minute or two, I patted him on the shoulder and told him, "God bless you. Enjoy your crackers." As I walked back towards my car, he began to mumble something else, and then he told me, "You're an asshole." I hopped in my car and left. I fail to see how offering him some food and a nice warm drink could possibly be considered asshole behavior. It only made sense if he didn't actually want food, but instead was only seeking money. It simply supports my hypothesis that most homeless and poor people aren't primarily in their condition because of mere circumstances. Time after time, this sort of thing is precisely what I experience in dealing with such people. More than 60% of the time, they are lying ingrates. I certainly care about their plight, but in such cases the issue isn't lack of resources. The issue is poor lifestyle choices and a pathetic attitude. American poverty isn't really about a lack of resources much at all.
Friday, June 11, 2010
On Breakups and White Lies
The threads of alleged niceness that are taught and encouraged today are, in actuality, anything but. This point has been brought up ad naseum by numerous authors and bloggers, so I will not spend any time supporting such a transparent fact. In this post, I want to take a brief look at the idea that using white lies is the best and kindest recourse, when instigating a breakup. Readers of my blog already know where I stand on the use of vacuous phrases utilized in the midst of a breakup. Yet, there are some who take the stance that it is better to cushion the blow and use white lies, rather than risk upsetting or hurting the self-esteem of a soon-to-be ex.
While it might seem that using trite, unaccompanied, meaningless phrases such as, "I just don't feel we're meant to be together," "It's not you, it's me," "This is just not quite working out," would be the kindest way to end a relationship, it really is anything but. My first objection to such a method is that it is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and avoiding confrontation. From a Biblical standpoint, one's primary motivation in any action or method should be love and a genuine desire for the best of the other person. When one's motives are skewed, it is certain that one's methods will be far from ideal. A fear-based mentality that seeks to avoid conflict is a selfish one rather than an others-centric love-based mentality.
If one does have a genuine care for the well-being of another, then love dictates that one's actions should be more concerned with helping a person and pointing them in a direction of personal growth, than of attempting to help them avoid unpleasant feelings which might be stirred up in the process. That some truths are unpleasant and uncomfortable does not mean that they should not be faced or dealt with. Similarly, if one does have a true love for another, such a person will limit their statements to that which can lead to real change and growth. Alternately, it is a sign of malicious intent if one expresses things simply to cause pain or inflict emotional distress. Wisdom then reveals that the most loving method of breaking up involves a clear and candid statement of those real reasons for the breakup which offer the opportunity for personal growth, stemming from a motive of love.
Secondly, a problem with the use of ambiguous or misleading language in the midst of breakup is that such verbalizations often cross the line into dishonesty and deception. A person of integrity may not fully reveal their entire stance, but they will never willfully deceive or mislead another. When the reason for the breakup is stated solely as, "It's not you, it's me," this is generally a flat-out lie. The intentional deception of another person is something that is not kind, loving or righteous in any regard. It is an evil of the highest sorts.
In considering the effect to the self-esteem of the soon-to-be ex, we must first consider the proper place of self-esteem. Proper self-esteem is a right estimation of oneself and one's standing in life. Viewing oneself as more perfect or less flawed than one is, results in an attitude of pride. Viewing oneself as more flawed or less capable than one is, needlessly inhibits one's ability to function in the world. Self-esteem, then, is only a good thing if is it founded on facts and built on a proper assessment of oneself. If a person's self-image is skewed, their self-esteem will be based on an illusion rather than truth. Therefore, the very best thing for a person's self-esteem is that it be based on a right estimation of self. It is necessary to be cognizant of one's strengths and weaknesses in order to rightly estimate oneself. In the process of a breakup, then, the best thing is for a person to be made aware of those strengths that they do not realize and also of those shortcomings, of which they are unaware. Anything else ensures that a flawed self-image is retained.
Regarding the clear exposition of reasons for a breakup, there is no mandate that such a thing occur. However, it is in the best interests of the other person that such an exposition be made. When vague and ambiguous reasons are offered, the person on the receiving end of the breakup lacks the peace of mind to know what caused the breakup. In the long-run it is far more troubling and emotionally painful to be left in the dark than it is to come to accept clearly-stated reasons given. Additionally, when no reasons are given, there is nothing that a person can do to attempt to avoid a similar future outcome. When clear and specific reasons for a breakup are given, a person is able to recognize their own flaws and deficiencies and grow in those areas. The correction of character and personality flaws in oneself increases the likeliness of better future relational outcomes. For those two reasons, it seems that it is far better to offer clear and specific reasons for a breakup, as opposed to explaining nothing.
Therefore, despite the initial attractiveness of the use of white lies or statements of ambiguity to preserve the feelings of another in a breakup, rational minds will conclude that such an approach conflicts with love and a genuine desire for the well-being of another. Lies, motivated by fear and selfishness, are incompatible with a love of truth, a pursuit of integrity or a lifestyle of love. Avoidance of real issues rather than a candid addressing of such issues robs someone of real opportunities for personal growth. As such, a clear and specific exposition of the issues leading to a breakup, offered from a heart of love, out of a genuine desire for the best of the other, is the most wholesome and caring method of ending relationships.
While it might seem that using trite, unaccompanied, meaningless phrases such as, "I just don't feel we're meant to be together," "It's not you, it's me," "This is just not quite working out," would be the kindest way to end a relationship, it really is anything but. My first objection to such a method is that it is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and avoiding confrontation. From a Biblical standpoint, one's primary motivation in any action or method should be love and a genuine desire for the best of the other person. When one's motives are skewed, it is certain that one's methods will be far from ideal. A fear-based mentality that seeks to avoid conflict is a selfish one rather than an others-centric love-based mentality.
If one does have a genuine care for the well-being of another, then love dictates that one's actions should be more concerned with helping a person and pointing them in a direction of personal growth, than of attempting to help them avoid unpleasant feelings which might be stirred up in the process. That some truths are unpleasant and uncomfortable does not mean that they should not be faced or dealt with. Similarly, if one does have a true love for another, such a person will limit their statements to that which can lead to real change and growth. Alternately, it is a sign of malicious intent if one expresses things simply to cause pain or inflict emotional distress. Wisdom then reveals that the most loving method of breaking up involves a clear and candid statement of those real reasons for the breakup which offer the opportunity for personal growth, stemming from a motive of love.
Secondly, a problem with the use of ambiguous or misleading language in the midst of breakup is that such verbalizations often cross the line into dishonesty and deception. A person of integrity may not fully reveal their entire stance, but they will never willfully deceive or mislead another. When the reason for the breakup is stated solely as, "It's not you, it's me," this is generally a flat-out lie. The intentional deception of another person is something that is not kind, loving or righteous in any regard. It is an evil of the highest sorts.
In considering the effect to the self-esteem of the soon-to-be ex, we must first consider the proper place of self-esteem. Proper self-esteem is a right estimation of oneself and one's standing in life. Viewing oneself as more perfect or less flawed than one is, results in an attitude of pride. Viewing oneself as more flawed or less capable than one is, needlessly inhibits one's ability to function in the world. Self-esteem, then, is only a good thing if is it founded on facts and built on a proper assessment of oneself. If a person's self-image is skewed, their self-esteem will be based on an illusion rather than truth. Therefore, the very best thing for a person's self-esteem is that it be based on a right estimation of self. It is necessary to be cognizant of one's strengths and weaknesses in order to rightly estimate oneself. In the process of a breakup, then, the best thing is for a person to be made aware of those strengths that they do not realize and also of those shortcomings, of which they are unaware. Anything else ensures that a flawed self-image is retained.
Regarding the clear exposition of reasons for a breakup, there is no mandate that such a thing occur. However, it is in the best interests of the other person that such an exposition be made. When vague and ambiguous reasons are offered, the person on the receiving end of the breakup lacks the peace of mind to know what caused the breakup. In the long-run it is far more troubling and emotionally painful to be left in the dark than it is to come to accept clearly-stated reasons given. Additionally, when no reasons are given, there is nothing that a person can do to attempt to avoid a similar future outcome. When clear and specific reasons for a breakup are given, a person is able to recognize their own flaws and deficiencies and grow in those areas. The correction of character and personality flaws in oneself increases the likeliness of better future relational outcomes. For those two reasons, it seems that it is far better to offer clear and specific reasons for a breakup, as opposed to explaining nothing.
Therefore, despite the initial attractiveness of the use of white lies or statements of ambiguity to preserve the feelings of another in a breakup, rational minds will conclude that such an approach conflicts with love and a genuine desire for the well-being of another. Lies, motivated by fear and selfishness, are incompatible with a love of truth, a pursuit of integrity or a lifestyle of love. Avoidance of real issues rather than a candid addressing of such issues robs someone of real opportunities for personal growth. As such, a clear and specific exposition of the issues leading to a breakup, offered from a heart of love, out of a genuine desire for the best of the other, is the most wholesome and caring method of ending relationships.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Approach Technique: Limit Your Vocabulary
The other evening I spent a nice relaxing night out by myself, acquiring some new music and doing a little pleasure reading. Whenever I go out, I always take the opportunity to meet some new people and work on my approach technique. For the most part, I was just doing my own thing, but I managed to work in three approaches quite effortlessly.
The first two were fun, simple, short and playful. I always imagine ridiculous scenarios in my head, and I'm quite unafraid to verbalize them. In the first instance, there was a cute, young cashier who looked either a bit bored or tired. When I was at the front of the line, I looked her in the eyes and asked: "A bit bored, are you?" The moment I addressed her directly, she brightened up a bit and looked substantially more energetic. She replied, adamantantly: "No, never!" Me: "Never bored, eh? How do you manage that? Do you entertain yourself by throwing things at unruly customers?" Cashier: "Of course not! That's against company policy." Me: "Let me guess. Next you're going to tell me that you always follow company policy." With that she chuckled a bit, and unconsciously adjusted her hair.
Later, I was at a coffee shop in a fairly SWPL area. There were a couple of trashy-looking college girls, wearing excessive make-up and lipstick, who sat near me and were discussing various recent dalliances. Typically, I consider it a waste of time to even bother opening such girls, and at the time I was quite happily engrossed in reading The New Division of Labor. A bit later, they moved to one of the couches across the room that had just been vacated. Half an hour later, when I was about to leave, I was gathering up my things and I noticed that there was an iPhone on the seat next to me, where one of the two girls had been sitting. Given that I would have to approach them to return the girl's phone to her, I figured I might as well try to strike up a conversation.
A few sentences later, I used the word "ensconced," which was met with a quizzical look on both girls' faces. Apparently, neither of their vocabularies was broad enough to include such a word. While I could have cut my opener and gone on to a new topic, a sizable amount of momentum had been lost by the fact that I used a word they were thoroughly unfamiliar with. Obviously, I overestimated the articulacy and intelligence of the average SWPL college girl. Just because a certain demographic views themselves as educated and intelligent doesn't make it so. As a result, I have decided that a useful approach heuristic would be to limit my vocabulary unless a girl has demonstrated a reasonable grasp of the subtleties of the English language.
The first two were fun, simple, short and playful. I always imagine ridiculous scenarios in my head, and I'm quite unafraid to verbalize them. In the first instance, there was a cute, young cashier who looked either a bit bored or tired. When I was at the front of the line, I looked her in the eyes and asked: "A bit bored, are you?" The moment I addressed her directly, she brightened up a bit and looked substantially more energetic. She replied, adamantantly: "No, never!" Me: "Never bored, eh? How do you manage that? Do you entertain yourself by throwing things at unruly customers?" Cashier: "Of course not! That's against company policy." Me: "Let me guess. Next you're going to tell me that you always follow company policy." With that she chuckled a bit, and unconsciously adjusted her hair.
Later, I was at a coffee shop in a fairly SWPL area. There were a couple of trashy-looking college girls, wearing excessive make-up and lipstick, who sat near me and were discussing various recent dalliances. Typically, I consider it a waste of time to even bother opening such girls, and at the time I was quite happily engrossed in reading The New Division of Labor. A bit later, they moved to one of the couches across the room that had just been vacated. Half an hour later, when I was about to leave, I was gathering up my things and I noticed that there was an iPhone on the seat next to me, where one of the two girls had been sitting. Given that I would have to approach them to return the girl's phone to her, I figured I might as well try to strike up a conversation.
A few sentences later, I used the word "ensconced," which was met with a quizzical look on both girls' faces. Apparently, neither of their vocabularies was broad enough to include such a word. While I could have cut my opener and gone on to a new topic, a sizable amount of momentum had been lost by the fact that I used a word they were thoroughly unfamiliar with. Obviously, I overestimated the articulacy and intelligence of the average SWPL college girl. Just because a certain demographic views themselves as educated and intelligent doesn't make it so. As a result, I have decided that a useful approach heuristic would be to limit my vocabulary unless a girl has demonstrated a reasonable grasp of the subtleties of the English language.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Dull or Interesting - A Lifestyle Choice
Recently I was reading a post by Butterfly Squash concerning the search for a future wife. In the post she lists the top ten things to avoid. The seventh thing on the list was one that especially got me thinking.
What, then, distinguishes those who are interesting from those who are not? I have noticed that those who are interesting often have fascinating thoughts about life, random little tidbits that they picked up recently, or insights about various aspects of life. Also, those who are interesting are often good communicators. They know how to speak, how to tell stories, and how to engage people with their words. In other words, there are primarily two factors that determine how interesting a person is. To be interesting, one must be a skilled communicator, and must have something of interest to communicate. Both of these are vital. Without the ability to convey information in a interesting manner, even entertaining stories, thoughts or facts, will come across as boring. Alternately, without interesting material to convey, there exists no substance to what one communicates.
Are either of these factors innate traits? No. Having interesting material to share is primarily a matter of having a mind full of fresh thoughts and experiences. The mind is like a river. It is most vibrant and alive when it has both a source and an outlet. When the mind is constantly innundated with new things and has an outlet to share new insights and thoughts, there is an endless supply of interesting things to discuss. Without a source, the mind has only its own resources to depend upon, which eventually become exhausted. Without an outlet, there is little incentive to retain interesting material. The mind that is missing either of these things will surely become stagnant. However, when one has both an outlet and a source, the mind cannot help but be full of fresh thoughts and ideas. It is therefore vital, for any person who wishes to be engaging and interesting, to continually seek sources of inspiration and outlets for creative expression, especially verbally. Having interesting things to share is simply a matter of choosing to have an active mind.
Similarly, being a skilled communicator is not simply something that is innate and hardwired into a person. While some people may have more of a propensity to communicate than others, the skillset is always something that is learned and developed. Learning to phrase things in captivating and memorable ways is something that is learned with practice. Holding people's attention, either in a group or individually, is a matter of knowing what entertains or intrigues people, and learning to deliver entertaining material in a scintillating manner. Excellent communicators are those who study the methods and techniques of other skilled communicators and who are very intentional about how they choose to express themselves. Every sentence is worded and delivered in a carefully-crafted way. Every word is specifically selected. Every pause is there by design. Communicating well is a skill that is developed by those who exercise their minds and teach themselves to be effective and engaging communicators.
As such, interesting people are simply those who choose to pursue being interesting. Dullness is a sign of mental laziness or poor mental priorities (school often dulls ones mental faculties through its rigorous and tedious system of regurgitation). Interestingness is a sign of mental diligence and a passion about knowing interesting things, thinking new thoughts and sharing them with others. In this way, being interesting is a lifestyle choice, rather than something that is innate and unchangable. Just like the pursuit of physical fitness is possible for all people, the sharpening of one's mind and wits is achievable through regular effort. Just as one becomes less physically fit by neglecting exercise, one become dull by neglecting mental exercise. An active mind is a necessary prerequisite of being an interesting person. Having sources that stimulate your thoughts and various outlets to communicate your experiences and ideas are absolutely indispensable.
7. Dull. She doesn’t bother to cultivate her intellect, has no interesting hobbies, and is incurious. She is a poor partner in conversation. She seems nice enough, but you find her boring. If you think she’s boring now, wait until you’ve shared a home with her for 15 years.This got me thinking about different people I know and what makes each of them dull or interesting. While it might seem that being interesting is primarily related to one's intelligence, I don't think that intelligence is the primary factor which determines whether a person is dull or interesting. I have friends of all sorts. Some of them are smart, but not very interesting. Some of them are of average intelligence, but really entertaining. Some of them are pretty dumb, and are mind-numbingly banal. Some of them aren't the smartest, but always have fascinating things to say. Some of them are quite intelligent and ever-scintillating in the way they converse. It's quite a broad spectrum. It would seem, then, that intelligence is not strongly correlated with being interesting.
What, then, distinguishes those who are interesting from those who are not? I have noticed that those who are interesting often have fascinating thoughts about life, random little tidbits that they picked up recently, or insights about various aspects of life. Also, those who are interesting are often good communicators. They know how to speak, how to tell stories, and how to engage people with their words. In other words, there are primarily two factors that determine how interesting a person is. To be interesting, one must be a skilled communicator, and must have something of interest to communicate. Both of these are vital. Without the ability to convey information in a interesting manner, even entertaining stories, thoughts or facts, will come across as boring. Alternately, without interesting material to convey, there exists no substance to what one communicates.
Are either of these factors innate traits? No. Having interesting material to share is primarily a matter of having a mind full of fresh thoughts and experiences. The mind is like a river. It is most vibrant and alive when it has both a source and an outlet. When the mind is constantly innundated with new things and has an outlet to share new insights and thoughts, there is an endless supply of interesting things to discuss. Without a source, the mind has only its own resources to depend upon, which eventually become exhausted. Without an outlet, there is little incentive to retain interesting material. The mind that is missing either of these things will surely become stagnant. However, when one has both an outlet and a source, the mind cannot help but be full of fresh thoughts and ideas. It is therefore vital, for any person who wishes to be engaging and interesting, to continually seek sources of inspiration and outlets for creative expression, especially verbally. Having interesting things to share is simply a matter of choosing to have an active mind.
Similarly, being a skilled communicator is not simply something that is innate and hardwired into a person. While some people may have more of a propensity to communicate than others, the skillset is always something that is learned and developed. Learning to phrase things in captivating and memorable ways is something that is learned with practice. Holding people's attention, either in a group or individually, is a matter of knowing what entertains or intrigues people, and learning to deliver entertaining material in a scintillating manner. Excellent communicators are those who study the methods and techniques of other skilled communicators and who are very intentional about how they choose to express themselves. Every sentence is worded and delivered in a carefully-crafted way. Every word is specifically selected. Every pause is there by design. Communicating well is a skill that is developed by those who exercise their minds and teach themselves to be effective and engaging communicators.
As such, interesting people are simply those who choose to pursue being interesting. Dullness is a sign of mental laziness or poor mental priorities (school often dulls ones mental faculties through its rigorous and tedious system of regurgitation). Interestingness is a sign of mental diligence and a passion about knowing interesting things, thinking new thoughts and sharing them with others. In this way, being interesting is a lifestyle choice, rather than something that is innate and unchangable. Just like the pursuit of physical fitness is possible for all people, the sharpening of one's mind and wits is achievable through regular effort. Just as one becomes less physically fit by neglecting exercise, one become dull by neglecting mental exercise. An active mind is a necessary prerequisite of being an interesting person. Having sources that stimulate your thoughts and various outlets to communicate your experiences and ideas are absolutely indispensable.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Game Is Universally Useful
While the primary purpose of learning Game is to increase one's skills at attracting desirable romantic partners, the benefits of Game certainly don't stop there. Game is an extremely broad body of knowledge that entails nearly every single aspect of social dynamics and practical psychology. In my own experience, I have found that the increased social skills acquired from learning Game have improved nearly all of my personal interactions. Several other bloggers have noted similar things.
The increased social awareness that comes from learning about social and relational dynamics enhances one's ability to read individuals and figure out how a group is socially structured. While in prior years, I never would have even considered the idea of social hierarchies, now I can easily determine who are the leaders and who are the followers in any group. I can quickly determine how each person perceives themselves in relation to the group, and how much influence they have over the others in the group. Being able to quickly and easily read groups is extremely helpful in determining how to interact with the group as a whole and with individual people. Understanding the various relationships within a group enables one to more easily make friends and gain group acceptance. Even beyond that, understanding group dynamics enables one to become highly respected as a leader in the group. Although, the benefits of understanding group dynamics hardly stop there. Chuck Ross has written an interesting blog on how his understanding of group dynamics directly impacts his job as a server.
Personal relationships are also enhanced by one's increased ability to read body language, tonal cues, unspoken messages, verbal subtexts and other non-verbal components of communication. This makes it much easier to entertain, fascinate, engage, attract or comfort people you relate to. The increased ability to read individuals is one of the benefits of learning Game that I have most enjoyed. Learning how much people enjoy teasing and verbal banter has made me a much more playful person. Last week I took my little sister to dinner for her 15th birthday. While we did have serious conversations about a broad array of topics, she definitely had a lot of fun trying to keep up with my constant teasing. I teased her so much, and reframed so many of her self-aggrandizing comments that eventually she said, "You're mean!" I quickly replied, "You wouldn't be enjoying yourself so completely if I weren't." With a smile on her face she said, "I know." Even a year ago, I would have interpretted the, "You're mean!" comment as one that meant that I had overstepped the line and begun to offend. Now, given my ability to better read people and know how they're feeling, I knew that she found my constant teasing extremely fun and engaging. This is just one example of many I could give on how being able to read people better enhances all of my personal relationships with my friends, with my family, and at work.
Assertiveness is another valuable trait that is much developed by learning Game. As a person learns to take their own desires seriously and act in a way that commands respect from others, conflict and arguments are more quickly dealt with or defused and overall life satisfaction rises. Rather than fearing the emotional state of others, an assertive person does what is reasonable, expects other people to be reasonable and refuses to shy away from a direct and unapologetic dealing with situations that arise. This has benefitted me a lot as I have learned to be unafraid to state my opinions, desires, and make bold requests whenever I want to. My assertiveness even helps lead others to be more assertive in their interactions. When I had dinner with my little sister last week, she ordered a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich. Upon eating the first couple of bites she remarked, "This sandwich is pretty crappy. I expected it to be better." I told her, "This is a nice restaurant. If the sandwich doesn't meet your standards then send it back and have them get you something else." A couple minutes later the waiter came by and she did exactly that, ordering a salad instead. She then told me, "I've never sent anything back at a restaurant before." Acting assertively and expecting other people to be reasonable inspires others to be more assertive. Last week, I read an excellent blog by Krauser on five ways he practices being more assertive in his interactions.
Another side effect of the pursuit of developing the masculine virtues advocated by Game is the way I view my relationship to the world and to others. In the past, I've always seen myself as being superior to or lesser than other people. Rather than being a consciously developed view, it was always subconsciously lurking beneath the surface. In learning what true confidence looks like, I have found that real confidence is always accompanied by an attitude of humility. In practicing confidence by "faking it until you make it," I learned that confidence is an attitude that is partially born out of realistic self-assessment, and partially born out of a realistic assessment of the world and its various challenges. I discovered that confidence rests in knowing oneself, continually developing one's character, and a deep contentment with who one is. As an unexpected side effect, I have gained a greater appreciation for various sorts of people and the different strengths they manifest. One who is truly confident recognizes the things that make him similar to others and also the things that set him apart. He eventually comes to see himself as quite ordinary and yet quite unique and special. Every man is my peer, whether he has numerous educational credientals, whether he is the President of a Fortune 500 company, or whether he is simply a janitor. Since I am an adult, even my parents are my peers.
These are but a few examples of how Game is useful even outside of the realm of romantic relationships. Cultivating the virtues that are central to Game will benefit every single relationship and social interaction that you engage in. As your inner mindset changes, so your outward world begins to reflect those inner changes. As you become more adept at interacting with groups, reading individuals, acting assertively and living with confidence, you quickly discover that social interactions are easier to navigate and more enjoyable than ever before. Game is universally useful!
The increased social awareness that comes from learning about social and relational dynamics enhances one's ability to read individuals and figure out how a group is socially structured. While in prior years, I never would have even considered the idea of social hierarchies, now I can easily determine who are the leaders and who are the followers in any group. I can quickly determine how each person perceives themselves in relation to the group, and how much influence they have over the others in the group. Being able to quickly and easily read groups is extremely helpful in determining how to interact with the group as a whole and with individual people. Understanding the various relationships within a group enables one to more easily make friends and gain group acceptance. Even beyond that, understanding group dynamics enables one to become highly respected as a leader in the group. Although, the benefits of understanding group dynamics hardly stop there. Chuck Ross has written an interesting blog on how his understanding of group dynamics directly impacts his job as a server.
Personal relationships are also enhanced by one's increased ability to read body language, tonal cues, unspoken messages, verbal subtexts and other non-verbal components of communication. This makes it much easier to entertain, fascinate, engage, attract or comfort people you relate to. The increased ability to read individuals is one of the benefits of learning Game that I have most enjoyed. Learning how much people enjoy teasing and verbal banter has made me a much more playful person. Last week I took my little sister to dinner for her 15th birthday. While we did have serious conversations about a broad array of topics, she definitely had a lot of fun trying to keep up with my constant teasing. I teased her so much, and reframed so many of her self-aggrandizing comments that eventually she said, "You're mean!" I quickly replied, "You wouldn't be enjoying yourself so completely if I weren't." With a smile on her face she said, "I know." Even a year ago, I would have interpretted the, "You're mean!" comment as one that meant that I had overstepped the line and begun to offend. Now, given my ability to better read people and know how they're feeling, I knew that she found my constant teasing extremely fun and engaging. This is just one example of many I could give on how being able to read people better enhances all of my personal relationships with my friends, with my family, and at work.
Assertiveness is another valuable trait that is much developed by learning Game. As a person learns to take their own desires seriously and act in a way that commands respect from others, conflict and arguments are more quickly dealt with or defused and overall life satisfaction rises. Rather than fearing the emotional state of others, an assertive person does what is reasonable, expects other people to be reasonable and refuses to shy away from a direct and unapologetic dealing with situations that arise. This has benefitted me a lot as I have learned to be unafraid to state my opinions, desires, and make bold requests whenever I want to. My assertiveness even helps lead others to be more assertive in their interactions. When I had dinner with my little sister last week, she ordered a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich. Upon eating the first couple of bites she remarked, "This sandwich is pretty crappy. I expected it to be better." I told her, "This is a nice restaurant. If the sandwich doesn't meet your standards then send it back and have them get you something else." A couple minutes later the waiter came by and she did exactly that, ordering a salad instead. She then told me, "I've never sent anything back at a restaurant before." Acting assertively and expecting other people to be reasonable inspires others to be more assertive. Last week, I read an excellent blog by Krauser on five ways he practices being more assertive in his interactions.
Another side effect of the pursuit of developing the masculine virtues advocated by Game is the way I view my relationship to the world and to others. In the past, I've always seen myself as being superior to or lesser than other people. Rather than being a consciously developed view, it was always subconsciously lurking beneath the surface. In learning what true confidence looks like, I have found that real confidence is always accompanied by an attitude of humility. In practicing confidence by "faking it until you make it," I learned that confidence is an attitude that is partially born out of realistic self-assessment, and partially born out of a realistic assessment of the world and its various challenges. I discovered that confidence rests in knowing oneself, continually developing one's character, and a deep contentment with who one is. As an unexpected side effect, I have gained a greater appreciation for various sorts of people and the different strengths they manifest. One who is truly confident recognizes the things that make him similar to others and also the things that set him apart. He eventually comes to see himself as quite ordinary and yet quite unique and special. Every man is my peer, whether he has numerous educational credientals, whether he is the President of a Fortune 500 company, or whether he is simply a janitor. Since I am an adult, even my parents are my peers.
These are but a few examples of how Game is useful even outside of the realm of romantic relationships. Cultivating the virtues that are central to Game will benefit every single relationship and social interaction that you engage in. As your inner mindset changes, so your outward world begins to reflect those inner changes. As you become more adept at interacting with groups, reading individuals, acting assertively and living with confidence, you quickly discover that social interactions are easier to navigate and more enjoyable than ever before. Game is universally useful!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Realizations: Comfort-Building
Experience itself is always the best teacher. Talking and reading about certain aspects of life only gets you so far. All the most important and pertinent insights strike you when you're actually living life. Just this week I had a somewhat unexpected realization. A lot of the writing and discussion of Game centers around relationship formation. In his book, The Mystery Method, Mystery calls the three critical phases of relationship formation the attraction phase, the comfort phase and the seduction phase. The attraction phase commences when boy meets girl, or in some cases, when a guy and girl begin to view each other as possible romantic interests. If at least a minimal amount of attraction is established, the comfort phase begins. At this point, both parties are already at least mildly interested in each other and at least somewhat attracted to each other. The comfort phase constitutes of everything that happens after two-way attraction is established and before either a formal relationship is established (LTR) or sexual relations commence.
In many ways, the comfort phase is a multi-dimensional sort of thing. Though an initial attraction has been established, for anything to occur between two people, there has to be more than just attraction. There needs to be connection. When you are first interacting with someone, and even sometimes after a date or two, your date still seems like a stranger. You may be good at reading people and you may know what sort of a person she is, but you still don't quite know her. Similarly, while she may know a little bit about you, she really doesn't know very much about you at all. This is especially true if you maintain a slightly mysterious persona during the attraction phase. In truth, there's nothing especially magical or mysterious about the comfort phase. It's as simple as starting to get to know one another and beginning to interact with each other in different contexts and in different locations. Until this week, I always thought that the main goal of the comfort phase was to make her feel more comfortable around me. And that's true. But that's only half of it.
The other crucial part of the comfort phase is for you to feel more comforable around her. It's a very different thing than just feeling generally comfortable, or socially comfortable. You can feel socially comfortable, and happily mingle in a social group, and yet that still doesn't mean that you feel individually comfortable with each person in the group. Similarly, if you're a confident and well-adapted person, you may feel reasonably comfortable in different situations and settings, even with unusual ones. But that's not the same as feeling comfortable with a person. It's different. And that's what struck me as surprising and unexpected. While anxiety and nervousness around new girls can be squelched with a little effort, being comfortable is something more than just not feeling nervous. Comfort is the antithesis of anxiety. Anxiety is felt because of dealing with the unfamiliar. Comfort is felt when you are with a person who is familiar. The more familiar a person is and the more emotionally safe a person seems, the more comfortable you naturally feel around them. So, while part of the comfort phase is for her to become more comfortable around you, it is an equally vital part of the comfort phase for you to become more comfortable around her. Both halves of it are necessary.
The nice thing about comfort building is that if everything is going well, you become more comfortable more quickly. It's a snowball effect. The first bit of comfort is the most difficult. From there on it gets much easier to become more comfortable with each other. It works that way because the more comfortable you feel, the more positive your emotional state is, the more you feel free to say what's on your mind and the easier it is to relax and enjoy whatever you're doing. Additionally, not only do you being to feel more comfortable, but your emotional state is subconsciously communicated to your date, and she can sense that you feel more comfortable, which causes her to feel more comfortable as well. Comfort is both a self-reinforcing feeling and a socially-reinforcing feeling. The challenge is just to start things off well. From that point, the momentum keeps things going with hardly any effort.
While it's nice to know that a girl I'm with is feeling more comfortable being around me, it's even nicer when I start to feel more comfortable around her. The more comfortable I am, the more fun I have. It's a beautiful self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing, socially-contagious cycle. In any case, I have come to the realization that the comfort phase is as much for me as it is for her. Becoming more comfortable with each other is a necessary and rewarding experience. Being comfortable around each other is an essential prelude to any sort of deeper enjoyment of each other.
In many ways, the comfort phase is a multi-dimensional sort of thing. Though an initial attraction has been established, for anything to occur between two people, there has to be more than just attraction. There needs to be connection. When you are first interacting with someone, and even sometimes after a date or two, your date still seems like a stranger. You may be good at reading people and you may know what sort of a person she is, but you still don't quite know her. Similarly, while she may know a little bit about you, she really doesn't know very much about you at all. This is especially true if you maintain a slightly mysterious persona during the attraction phase. In truth, there's nothing especially magical or mysterious about the comfort phase. It's as simple as starting to get to know one another and beginning to interact with each other in different contexts and in different locations. Until this week, I always thought that the main goal of the comfort phase was to make her feel more comfortable around me. And that's true. But that's only half of it.
The other crucial part of the comfort phase is for you to feel more comforable around her. It's a very different thing than just feeling generally comfortable, or socially comfortable. You can feel socially comfortable, and happily mingle in a social group, and yet that still doesn't mean that you feel individually comfortable with each person in the group. Similarly, if you're a confident and well-adapted person, you may feel reasonably comfortable in different situations and settings, even with unusual ones. But that's not the same as feeling comfortable with a person. It's different. And that's what struck me as surprising and unexpected. While anxiety and nervousness around new girls can be squelched with a little effort, being comfortable is something more than just not feeling nervous. Comfort is the antithesis of anxiety. Anxiety is felt because of dealing with the unfamiliar. Comfort is felt when you are with a person who is familiar. The more familiar a person is and the more emotionally safe a person seems, the more comfortable you naturally feel around them. So, while part of the comfort phase is for her to become more comfortable around you, it is an equally vital part of the comfort phase for you to become more comfortable around her. Both halves of it are necessary.
The nice thing about comfort building is that if everything is going well, you become more comfortable more quickly. It's a snowball effect. The first bit of comfort is the most difficult. From there on it gets much easier to become more comfortable with each other. It works that way because the more comfortable you feel, the more positive your emotional state is, the more you feel free to say what's on your mind and the easier it is to relax and enjoy whatever you're doing. Additionally, not only do you being to feel more comfortable, but your emotional state is subconsciously communicated to your date, and she can sense that you feel more comfortable, which causes her to feel more comfortable as well. Comfort is both a self-reinforcing feeling and a socially-reinforcing feeling. The challenge is just to start things off well. From that point, the momentum keeps things going with hardly any effort.
While it's nice to know that a girl I'm with is feeling more comfortable being around me, it's even nicer when I start to feel more comfortable around her. The more comfortable I am, the more fun I have. It's a beautiful self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing, socially-contagious cycle. In any case, I have come to the realization that the comfort phase is as much for me as it is for her. Becoming more comfortable with each other is a necessary and rewarding experience. Being comfortable around each other is an essential prelude to any sort of deeper enjoyment of each other.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thoughts On Inner Game
Being a young adult, I often find my thoughts turning to the subject of dating. What makes for a great date? How can you present an honest and genuine, yet interesting and attractive image of yourself when meeting a girl, or taking her on a first or second date? What perspectives lead to the best possible results, both objectively and subjectively? While my thoughts are far from being highly refined, over the past couple of days I was struck with several simple insights.
My first major realization is that the external trappings of a date or interaction aren't especially important. They do matter, but only indirectly. Recently, a friend of mine went on a date with a girl that he was interested in, and a day after the date I asked him how it went. He said that they had gone to some fun places, and that the conversation was okay, but he really wasn't feeling the chemistry. Since the chemistry was completely absent, he told me in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to go out with the girl anymore. He didn't want to date her. Ironically, a couple weeks later things completely changed and now he is ridiculously head over heels for her. Regardless of what happens with that relationship, I was just reminded that the trappings of a date aren't of final importance. On that first date they did a bunch of fun things, but afterwards my friend didn't want to see her again. It's all about the "chemistry." Such a term always seems to convey some sort of nebulous and mystical factor that is a necessary part of romantic connection. But, the importance of chemistry makes perfect sense when you fully understand both male and female natures.
The necessary implication of this realization is simply a recognition that Inner Game is the most critical determinate of how well your dates will go. What is Inner Game? Several people in the blogosphere have taken a stab at defining Game, and I think that Ferdinand Bardamu has come up with the most succinct and clear definition of Game. In his post, Ferdinand summarizes the seven principles that are most critical determinants of male attractiveness: assertiveness, calmness, confidence, independence, indifference, presentability, and sociability. In trying to hone my game, I've begun setting specific goals for myself before dates, to help me focus on the things that are most important for me to remember. Here are some rules/mindsets that I've set for myself recently, presented in no particular order:
1. Be Relaxed and Calm
Whether meeting a new girl, or going on a date with a girl I barely know, there's always a temptation to be worried about the interaction and how it's going. This self-inflicted anxiety is the most deadly thing possible. Feeling worried about an interaction turns the the interaction into a high-stress situation, which not only keeps me from enjoying some playful chatting, but also is subconsciously communicated to the girl. The calmer I am, the more I enjoy myself, and, in turn, the more the girl enjoys the interaction.
2. If I'm Having Fun, Then She's Having Fun
If I catch myself thinking about whether my date is enjoying herself or not, I have the wrong mindset. The most important goal of a date is to enjoy myself. If I am enjoying myself, then 95% of the time, she is also enjoying herself. There are two reasons for this. First of all, since happy people are more fun to be around, and since emotions are self-reinforcing, whenever I am enjoying myself I am more energetic, more creative, wittier and more humorous. So, whenever I am having fun, I am more fun to be around. Since I'm enjoying myself, she will automatically be having a much better time than she would if I'm not as fun to be around. Secondly, since women are naturally empathic, they cannot help but be directly affected by the emotional state of others. Emotions are contagious. For that reason, when she is with me, if I am enjoying myself, then not only does she enjoy my presence more, but she also feels internally happier, on a completely subconscious level.
3. Plan Dates That I Enjoy
Because of the previous rule, whenever I'm planning a date, I always make sure that everything that happens on a date is something that I want to do. I'll take her to places that I like to go, eat at restaurants that I really love, give her drinks that I really like and generally do things that I love doing. If it's something that I would only consider doing because it's a date, I cross it off the list of possibilities right away. If it's something that I would be perfectly happy to do with my best friend or by myself, then it's a winner. Therefore, any date plan I make will only include venues and activities that I really enjoy. It's always a surefire winner! Besides, if for some odd reason a girl doesn't like any of the places or activities on the date, then I already know that we're unlikely to be compatible. It's nice to find that out up front.
4. Touch Her More
As much as I love giving and receiving affection, I'm also very shy about touching people that I don't know very well. Neither of my parents are affectionate people, so touching people beyond hugs and handshakes has always forced me far out of my comfort zone. Given the importance of physical touch both for building comfort and signaling attraction, this is one thing that I've been putting major effort into. Thankfully, I'm starting to become more comfortable touching my friends, my family and girls that I'm interested in. Eventually it will become second nature; until then, I'll have to consciously focus on touching my date more.
5. Be Interesting and Fun
As a person, I am quite fun to be around and I always have plenty to talk about. However, whenever I have the wrong mindset or priorities, often my date doesn't have the opportunity to see those sides of me. Sometimes I come across as too intellectual. Sometimes I come across as socially awkward. But, whenever I stop concerning myself with whether my date is enjoying herself and what she thinks of me, then I am free to be my usual happy, hyperbolic, and humorous self. Being free to discuss whatever I happen to be thinking about and joke around the way I usually do means that I'm feeling relaxed enough to enjoy myself, and it also gives her a chance to see that I'm fun, interesting and verbally playful.
6. Central Date Focus: Do I Like This Girl?
The most important question of the date is, "Do I like this girl?" Is she fun to be around? Is she feminine? Is she a good conversationalist? Is she a spiritual person? Is she easy-going? Is she a warm and sweet person? Whether she likes me or not is only of secondary importance. That's because if I'm not very attracted to her, then it really doesn't matter how well the date went, nor how much she likes me. Also, women are attracted to men with standards and the very fact that I am sizing her up as a LTR-worthy girl makes me more attractive to her.
So far, these are the rules that I've set for myself to ensure that I keep the right mindset and improve my overall attractiveness. Inner Game is all about having the right internal attitudes and perspectives, which will always lead to better external results. Of the seven principles mentioned in Ferdinand's post, my rules definitely embody assertiveness, calmness, confidence, indifference and sociability. The only principle not included is presentability. That's one aspect of my game that doesn't need much work. We'll see what happens this month. After almost a year of not feeling ready for or desirous of a LTR, I'm feeling quite confident and excited about the prospect of finding an amazing woman and dating her.
My first major realization is that the external trappings of a date or interaction aren't especially important. They do matter, but only indirectly. Recently, a friend of mine went on a date with a girl that he was interested in, and a day after the date I asked him how it went. He said that they had gone to some fun places, and that the conversation was okay, but he really wasn't feeling the chemistry. Since the chemistry was completely absent, he told me in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to go out with the girl anymore. He didn't want to date her. Ironically, a couple weeks later things completely changed and now he is ridiculously head over heels for her. Regardless of what happens with that relationship, I was just reminded that the trappings of a date aren't of final importance. On that first date they did a bunch of fun things, but afterwards my friend didn't want to see her again. It's all about the "chemistry." Such a term always seems to convey some sort of nebulous and mystical factor that is a necessary part of romantic connection. But, the importance of chemistry makes perfect sense when you fully understand both male and female natures.
The necessary implication of this realization is simply a recognition that Inner Game is the most critical determinate of how well your dates will go. What is Inner Game? Several people in the blogosphere have taken a stab at defining Game, and I think that Ferdinand Bardamu has come up with the most succinct and clear definition of Game. In his post, Ferdinand summarizes the seven principles that are most critical determinants of male attractiveness: assertiveness, calmness, confidence, independence, indifference, presentability, and sociability. In trying to hone my game, I've begun setting specific goals for myself before dates, to help me focus on the things that are most important for me to remember. Here are some rules/mindsets that I've set for myself recently, presented in no particular order:
1. Be Relaxed and Calm
Whether meeting a new girl, or going on a date with a girl I barely know, there's always a temptation to be worried about the interaction and how it's going. This self-inflicted anxiety is the most deadly thing possible. Feeling worried about an interaction turns the the interaction into a high-stress situation, which not only keeps me from enjoying some playful chatting, but also is subconsciously communicated to the girl. The calmer I am, the more I enjoy myself, and, in turn, the more the girl enjoys the interaction.
2. If I'm Having Fun, Then She's Having Fun
If I catch myself thinking about whether my date is enjoying herself or not, I have the wrong mindset. The most important goal of a date is to enjoy myself. If I am enjoying myself, then 95% of the time, she is also enjoying herself. There are two reasons for this. First of all, since happy people are more fun to be around, and since emotions are self-reinforcing, whenever I am enjoying myself I am more energetic, more creative, wittier and more humorous. So, whenever I am having fun, I am more fun to be around. Since I'm enjoying myself, she will automatically be having a much better time than she would if I'm not as fun to be around. Secondly, since women are naturally empathic, they cannot help but be directly affected by the emotional state of others. Emotions are contagious. For that reason, when she is with me, if I am enjoying myself, then not only does she enjoy my presence more, but she also feels internally happier, on a completely subconscious level.
3. Plan Dates That I Enjoy
Because of the previous rule, whenever I'm planning a date, I always make sure that everything that happens on a date is something that I want to do. I'll take her to places that I like to go, eat at restaurants that I really love, give her drinks that I really like and generally do things that I love doing. If it's something that I would only consider doing because it's a date, I cross it off the list of possibilities right away. If it's something that I would be perfectly happy to do with my best friend or by myself, then it's a winner. Therefore, any date plan I make will only include venues and activities that I really enjoy. It's always a surefire winner! Besides, if for some odd reason a girl doesn't like any of the places or activities on the date, then I already know that we're unlikely to be compatible. It's nice to find that out up front.
4. Touch Her More
As much as I love giving and receiving affection, I'm also very shy about touching people that I don't know very well. Neither of my parents are affectionate people, so touching people beyond hugs and handshakes has always forced me far out of my comfort zone. Given the importance of physical touch both for building comfort and signaling attraction, this is one thing that I've been putting major effort into. Thankfully, I'm starting to become more comfortable touching my friends, my family and girls that I'm interested in. Eventually it will become second nature; until then, I'll have to consciously focus on touching my date more.
5. Be Interesting and Fun
As a person, I am quite fun to be around and I always have plenty to talk about. However, whenever I have the wrong mindset or priorities, often my date doesn't have the opportunity to see those sides of me. Sometimes I come across as too intellectual. Sometimes I come across as socially awkward. But, whenever I stop concerning myself with whether my date is enjoying herself and what she thinks of me, then I am free to be my usual happy, hyperbolic, and humorous self. Being free to discuss whatever I happen to be thinking about and joke around the way I usually do means that I'm feeling relaxed enough to enjoy myself, and it also gives her a chance to see that I'm fun, interesting and verbally playful.
6. Central Date Focus: Do I Like This Girl?
The most important question of the date is, "Do I like this girl?" Is she fun to be around? Is she feminine? Is she a good conversationalist? Is she a spiritual person? Is she easy-going? Is she a warm and sweet person? Whether she likes me or not is only of secondary importance. That's because if I'm not very attracted to her, then it really doesn't matter how well the date went, nor how much she likes me. Also, women are attracted to men with standards and the very fact that I am sizing her up as a LTR-worthy girl makes me more attractive to her.
So far, these are the rules that I've set for myself to ensure that I keep the right mindset and improve my overall attractiveness. Inner Game is all about having the right internal attitudes and perspectives, which will always lead to better external results. Of the seven principles mentioned in Ferdinand's post, my rules definitely embody assertiveness, calmness, confidence, indifference and sociability. The only principle not included is presentability. That's one aspect of my game that doesn't need much work. We'll see what happens this month. After almost a year of not feeling ready for or desirous of a LTR, I'm feeling quite confident and excited about the prospect of finding an amazing woman and dating her.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
On Social Tact: Handling Confrontation
Last night a couple of friends staged a little mini-intervention for me. They were concerned about certain lifestyle choices that they thought I was making. That part was cleared up quite quickly and easily since it was just a misunderstanding. In addition to that, they also let me know that something I did a couple of weeks ago really offended another friend of mine. Until they said something, I honestly had no idea that he was so offended. I have seen him quite a number of times since the incident, and not once did he say anything or convey that I had really offended him. To hear that he had an issue with me that he hadn't talked about really surprised me, since overall I view him as a very bold, assertive and direct sort of person. In fact, as I thought it more, I felt really angry that he hadn't said anything.
Let's be honest. Even in the best of relationships, occasionally tension comes between two people. Sometimes a person is offended by something their friend said or did. That's normal and natural. The question is, what is the best way to handle an offense? Fundamentally, there are three basic approaches to dealing with grudges. You can directly confront your friend about the issue, indirectly handle the problem through passive-aggressive behavior or gossiping, or avoid dealing with the issue completely.
In the case of minor irritations avoiding the issue might work, but with any serious offense or grudge, it is a horrible choice. Resentment builds internally and eventually will harm the relationship, lead to mental problems or result in an emotional blowup. Since all three of those are utterly undesirable, avoiding the issue is a horrible option. More specifically, it is an illusory option, since not dealing with things just means that they will be dealt with later in a much uglier way.
Directly confronting your friend is the scariest option, but also the most cathartic. The best way to handle confrontation is to be clear and direct about specifically what behavior bothered you and why. At the same time, the tone of the confrontation should be positive and non-condemning. In many cases, offenses are simply the result of miscommunication or misunderstanding and can be cleared up fairly painlessly. In other cases, an offense may have been a mistake, and a simple apology is all that is needed. In the rare case of a perpetual or serious issue, while the air may not be cleared immediately, at least everything is in the open and there are no mind games or misconceptions about the disharmony. Handling confrontation directly and in a positive manner is a scary option which takes a good amount of courage, but it also leads to the best results and the least emotional fallout or social collateral damage.
Indirectly handling the issue is the coward's way out. Engaging in passive-aggressive behaviors creates a major emotional rift in the relationship, which often causes more harm than the original offense. By expecting your friend to read your mind or just "know" something is wrong you refuse to take responsiblity for your own emotional state and for the condition of the relationship, placing the burden entirely on your friend's shoulders. Alternately, gossiping to other friends about the issue causes social damage and alienation. Eventually, when the gossip circle has completed its rounds, irreparable damage has been done, and the devastation far exceeds the original offense. At that point the direct confrontation will certainly be more heated and emotional than handling things directly up front would have been.
As such, I'm quite disappointed with my friend. He could have come to me directly and things would have been settled easily in five minutes time with a simple apology. But, instead of having the balls to tell me that something I had done bothered him, he chose to gossip about it and pretend that everything was okay between him and I, just because he was afraid that things would be "awkward" between us if he said anything. For most Americans, I would expect them to take the coward's route. As a nation, we are too passive and fearful to confront people openly and honestly, the way we should. In my friend's case I am surprised, because normally he seems quite courageous, assertive and masculine in his interactions. Hopefully, this was simply an odd abnormality. In any case, the next time I see him I will confront him directly about the issue and quickly clear things up. Directly handling confrontation is the most caring and courageous way to deal with things. Insipid mind games or destructive social gossip are both cowardly and wimpy ways to deal with offenses.
Let's be honest. Even in the best of relationships, occasionally tension comes between two people. Sometimes a person is offended by something their friend said or did. That's normal and natural. The question is, what is the best way to handle an offense? Fundamentally, there are three basic approaches to dealing with grudges. You can directly confront your friend about the issue, indirectly handle the problem through passive-aggressive behavior or gossiping, or avoid dealing with the issue completely.
In the case of minor irritations avoiding the issue might work, but with any serious offense or grudge, it is a horrible choice. Resentment builds internally and eventually will harm the relationship, lead to mental problems or result in an emotional blowup. Since all three of those are utterly undesirable, avoiding the issue is a horrible option. More specifically, it is an illusory option, since not dealing with things just means that they will be dealt with later in a much uglier way.
Directly confronting your friend is the scariest option, but also the most cathartic. The best way to handle confrontation is to be clear and direct about specifically what behavior bothered you and why. At the same time, the tone of the confrontation should be positive and non-condemning. In many cases, offenses are simply the result of miscommunication or misunderstanding and can be cleared up fairly painlessly. In other cases, an offense may have been a mistake, and a simple apology is all that is needed. In the rare case of a perpetual or serious issue, while the air may not be cleared immediately, at least everything is in the open and there are no mind games or misconceptions about the disharmony. Handling confrontation directly and in a positive manner is a scary option which takes a good amount of courage, but it also leads to the best results and the least emotional fallout or social collateral damage.
Indirectly handling the issue is the coward's way out. Engaging in passive-aggressive behaviors creates a major emotional rift in the relationship, which often causes more harm than the original offense. By expecting your friend to read your mind or just "know" something is wrong you refuse to take responsiblity for your own emotional state and for the condition of the relationship, placing the burden entirely on your friend's shoulders. Alternately, gossiping to other friends about the issue causes social damage and alienation. Eventually, when the gossip circle has completed its rounds, irreparable damage has been done, and the devastation far exceeds the original offense. At that point the direct confrontation will certainly be more heated and emotional than handling things directly up front would have been.
As such, I'm quite disappointed with my friend. He could have come to me directly and things would have been settled easily in five minutes time with a simple apology. But, instead of having the balls to tell me that something I had done bothered him, he chose to gossip about it and pretend that everything was okay between him and I, just because he was afraid that things would be "awkward" between us if he said anything. For most Americans, I would expect them to take the coward's route. As a nation, we are too passive and fearful to confront people openly and honestly, the way we should. In my friend's case I am surprised, because normally he seems quite courageous, assertive and masculine in his interactions. Hopefully, this was simply an odd abnormality. In any case, the next time I see him I will confront him directly about the issue and quickly clear things up. Directly handling confrontation is the most caring and courageous way to deal with things. Insipid mind games or destructive social gossip are both cowardly and wimpy ways to deal with offenses.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Heartless and Unreasonable
Sometimes I am truly shocked by the sort of behavior that people are allowed to get away with. Recently something happened to a friend that I consider completely heartless and unreasonable. In his own words:
But, as horrible as that is, that's not the worst part. While it might possibly be understandable to breakup with someone on a capricious whim, and while perhaps there may be a few unique excuses for why a relatively mature person might behave in a immature and cowardly manner, for the second part of her behavior there can be no possible excuse. When people are living together, and when one or more of them is away from their hometown and natural support network, outside of extreme violence or majorly destructive behavior, there is no humane reason to forcibly evict someone who has done nothing wrong without warning. To kick someone out with zero warning is downright cruel, heartless and ruthless. She should be ashamed of herself!
But, given the moral depravity of today's society and the lack of even common decency, I'm sure that right now some of her girlfriends are consoling her and telling her that she did the right thing. If we, as a society, view this sort of behavior as a normal part of adolescence or as a morally neutral action that is simply part of the game of "love and war," then we are complicit in her actions. Personally, I believe there are moral and social lines that should not be crossed. I see this sort of behavior as outrageous and inhumane. While modern combat dating has conditioned people to behave like horrible people in order to achieve romantic success, people of integrity and character need to stand up against the tides of cruelty and dishonesty that permeate the dating world and refuse to accept or approve of any sort of behavior that is cowardly, immature or dishonest. As Cless Alvein insightfully writes, "In truth, the single most important aspect of being a great girlfriend is being a great friend, and more important to being a great friend is being a great person. Only if people are held accountable for their actions will they choose to behave honorably. We need to set high personal and moral standards and verbally stand against such atrocious behavior.
So, I just got dumped by my girlfriend of two years... I'm really not sure why. I just got an email yesterday saying that 'she couldn't do this anymore' and that I'd better not be at the house when she got home. I have no idea what brought it on... we had some problems earlier on, but we hadn't really fought in like a month or two. It just seemed like she had her mind set on it not working, so she wouldn't let it... and things seemed really calm and normal between us. She left for work yesterday morning and told me she loved me as she did...There are two major things wrong with this. First of all, the breakup itself sounds completely ludicrous and unwarranted. As with most breakups, it was female-instigated and apparently done for typical female reasons. By typical female reasons, I mean vague, undisclosed and trivial reasons typically accompanied with words such as, "Of course, I still love you, but..." "I can't do this," "We're just not compatible," or other similar vacuous phrases that convey nothing of truth or practical pertinence. While there might be some legitmate reasons for breakups, this instance does not seem to be such a case. Even supposing that there were legitimate cause for a breakup, this one is a textbook example of an immature breakup. It was instigated by e-mail, rather than in person, which is a sure sign of cowardice. There obviously has been some pre-breakup deception and/or lying on her part, otherwise there would be clear indicators of relational issues and she wouldn't have acted as if everything was alright in the morning, when it clearly wasn't. Additionally, if she really cared about him after dating for two years, then she would be willing to have a mature conversation regarding the reasons for the breakup, rather than offering vacuous phrases and leaving him completely confused and clueless about the whole ordeal. The breakup, even supposing that it might be warranted in some small measure, was clearly instigated in a cowardly, immature and deceptive manner. That is utterly reprehensible and should be socially unacceptable.
So, aside from the normal heartbreak of losing a serious lover of two years, there was also the latter part of them email. I had been living with her for over a year at this point, and since I apparently had no idea this was coming, that leaves me homeless. Like, very literally, I slept on an acquaintance's couch last night, and I have no idea where I'm going to be in a few hours from now or any following night. I lack any real close friends in Boston - she was pretty much my only one. So, it's not like I really have anywhere to turn.
So, here I am: heartbroken, friendless, and homeless.
But, as horrible as that is, that's not the worst part. While it might possibly be understandable to breakup with someone on a capricious whim, and while perhaps there may be a few unique excuses for why a relatively mature person might behave in a immature and cowardly manner, for the second part of her behavior there can be no possible excuse. When people are living together, and when one or more of them is away from their hometown and natural support network, outside of extreme violence or majorly destructive behavior, there is no humane reason to forcibly evict someone who has done nothing wrong without warning. To kick someone out with zero warning is downright cruel, heartless and ruthless. She should be ashamed of herself!
But, given the moral depravity of today's society and the lack of even common decency, I'm sure that right now some of her girlfriends are consoling her and telling her that she did the right thing. If we, as a society, view this sort of behavior as a normal part of adolescence or as a morally neutral action that is simply part of the game of "love and war," then we are complicit in her actions. Personally, I believe there are moral and social lines that should not be crossed. I see this sort of behavior as outrageous and inhumane. While modern combat dating has conditioned people to behave like horrible people in order to achieve romantic success, people of integrity and character need to stand up against the tides of cruelty and dishonesty that permeate the dating world and refuse to accept or approve of any sort of behavior that is cowardly, immature or dishonest. As Cless Alvein insightfully writes, "In truth, the single most important aspect of being a great girlfriend is being a great friend, and more important to being a great friend is being a great person. Only if people are held accountable for their actions will they choose to behave honorably. We need to set high personal and moral standards and verbally stand against such atrocious behavior.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Peer Approval
Most people have a natural desire for acceptance. They want to be well-liked and perceived favorably by those they interact with. This is a reasonable and healthy desire. However, one simple fact of life is that you can't please everyone. And, even supposing you could please everyone, you really shouldn't. For this reason, it is crucially important to determine whose opinions and perspectives actually matter, and whose don't. Most people's opinions and perceptions fall into the second category. Because of this, I think that the best mental state to adopt towards most people's opinions of you is one of complete indifference. If they like you, that's nice. So what? If they think you are stupid, that's fine. So what?
There are four main components that factor into people's assessment of you. First, there is who you actually are. Secondly, there is how you present yourself. Third, there is how a person perceives you. Fourth, there is how a person judges you based on their perception of you. As you can see it's a pretty lengthy signal pathway, and therefore there is a lot of possible interference. Because of this, there are numerous reasons why a person might like or dislike you. A person may dislike you because of the way you present yourself and interact, even though you may be more likable beneath the surface. A person may dislike you because they have a skewed view of you, and don't correctly interpret how you present yourself. A person may dislike you because of their own internal standards, which you don't measure up to.
Considering these various factors and their possible effects on public approval, there are really only two sorts of actions you can take to alter your standings in someone else's eyes. The opinions and perceptual accuracy of another person cannot be directly affected, which leaves you having control only over who you actually are and how you choose to interact. For this reason, it is important to be aware of who you are and have a clear image of the personal ideal that you are moving towards. Also, it is good to cultivate a high-level of social awareness, so that you are conscious of how you interact with others and how they respond to you. This awareness will allow to you adjust your social calibration to various groups and settings, so that you will be versatile in interacting with various types of groups. One-on-one conversations are very different than group interactions. Chatting over coffee is very different from meeting people in a bar, which is quite different from chatting with people at church, which offers a very different sort of group dynamic from a road trip in a crowded car. Likewise, interacting with intellectuals requires a very different sort of social skillset than getting along well with rambunctious youngsters, party-crazy college students or blue-collar workers. There are no one-size-fits-all methods of interaction that will work equally well with every group of people, which is why social awareness and adaptability are vital.
Fundamentally, likability comes down to several things. For the most part people will like you if you are friendly, have a positive attitude towards them, conform to the social norms of the group and avoid stepping on anyone's toes. Likewise, if you appear unfriendly, seem to have a negative attitude towards someone, show a lack of understanding of or disregard for group social norms or make comments that bother someone, then people are more likely to dislike you. These are the basic rules for likability. Being aware of this allows you to intentionally choose how to interact in any group.
Though in many cases, acting in a likable manner is most desirable, there are some times when you might want to choose to act in a contrary manner. In a positive, healthy peer group, there is rarely any reason or need to behave contrarily. However, in a peer group that supports unhealthy lifestyle decisions and shames those who refuse to participate, nonconformity is the best response. A couple of months ago a friend invited me to a holiday barbecue she was hosting. Since I had just met her recently, I didn't know any of her friends and I had no idea what sort of party it would be. She mentioned there would be alcohol, and that certainly didn't bother me. However, when I actually showed up, I found out that it was a very hedonistic sort of party and that most of them were crazy party animals. There was lots of drinking, drug use, smoking and sensual dancing. Lots of people were taking shots of alcohol, and one fellow asked me to take a shot of vodka with him. I immediately declined and told him that I don't do shots. He quickly informed me that it was very disrespectful to refuse to take a shot, and that I was disrespecting him. Confident in my stance and unaffected by his attempts to shame me, I repeated that I don't do shots and then grabbed another hamburger before going to chat with someone else. Though it certainly wasn't my favorite party, I met a couple nice people and had a good time. By the time I left, a couple people liked me, a couple people disliked me and most people still held a neutral opinion of me.
What concerns me more than what other people think of me is how I act. In the case of those who disliked me, they disliked me because I refused to participate in their drunken revelry. However, since I reject their standards of approval and stand by my actions as being wise and righteous, their unfavorable opinion of me carries no weight. I don't care. In this case I didn't go out of my way to show active disapproval of their lifestyle and carnal hedonism, but even supposing I had, there would be nothing wrong with such a course of action. Sometimes righteous living involves a passive rejection of certain worldviews, and sometimes it involves active opposition to certain ways of acting.
Jesus Christ is the prime example of someone who lived intentionally and always acted righteously. Some people loved Him. Some people hated His guts. Some people remained indifferent. Yet, Jesus was never swayed by people's opinions. Instead, He chose to carry out the Father's will in all things and live righteously, without compromise. Jesus never concerned Himself with how likable He was. So, sometimes He dined with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners without shaming or judging them. Other times, He rebuked the Pharisees for their legalism. Sometimes He showed repentant people mercy and exhorted them to walk in the path of righteousness. Other times, he fashioned a whip and drove people out of the temple for disrespecting God's house. Jesus' main goal was righteous, assertive, consistent living. This resulted in Him being fiercely loved and violently hated.
As the moral example for our lives, we should all strive to adopt the same perspective that Jesus had. Right living is the goal. Approval from God is the one thing that should motivate our actions. People's opinions and the approval of our peer group should hold no power over the ways we choose to act and relate to people. The opinions that we should heed are those of role models and authority figures who have wisdom and insight. Parents, close friends, family members, church elders and mentors can offer valuable insights into how we should act and think about life. Everyone else's opinions really don't matter. Feel free to be likable when you want to be, and enjoy nonconformity when the situation calls for it. No matter what you do, be intentional and refuse to compromise your values.
There are four main components that factor into people's assessment of you. First, there is who you actually are. Secondly, there is how you present yourself. Third, there is how a person perceives you. Fourth, there is how a person judges you based on their perception of you. As you can see it's a pretty lengthy signal pathway, and therefore there is a lot of possible interference. Because of this, there are numerous reasons why a person might like or dislike you. A person may dislike you because of the way you present yourself and interact, even though you may be more likable beneath the surface. A person may dislike you because they have a skewed view of you, and don't correctly interpret how you present yourself. A person may dislike you because of their own internal standards, which you don't measure up to.
Considering these various factors and their possible effects on public approval, there are really only two sorts of actions you can take to alter your standings in someone else's eyes. The opinions and perceptual accuracy of another person cannot be directly affected, which leaves you having control only over who you actually are and how you choose to interact. For this reason, it is important to be aware of who you are and have a clear image of the personal ideal that you are moving towards. Also, it is good to cultivate a high-level of social awareness, so that you are conscious of how you interact with others and how they respond to you. This awareness will allow to you adjust your social calibration to various groups and settings, so that you will be versatile in interacting with various types of groups. One-on-one conversations are very different than group interactions. Chatting over coffee is very different from meeting people in a bar, which is quite different from chatting with people at church, which offers a very different sort of group dynamic from a road trip in a crowded car. Likewise, interacting with intellectuals requires a very different sort of social skillset than getting along well with rambunctious youngsters, party-crazy college students or blue-collar workers. There are no one-size-fits-all methods of interaction that will work equally well with every group of people, which is why social awareness and adaptability are vital.
Fundamentally, likability comes down to several things. For the most part people will like you if you are friendly, have a positive attitude towards them, conform to the social norms of the group and avoid stepping on anyone's toes. Likewise, if you appear unfriendly, seem to have a negative attitude towards someone, show a lack of understanding of or disregard for group social norms or make comments that bother someone, then people are more likely to dislike you. These are the basic rules for likability. Being aware of this allows you to intentionally choose how to interact in any group.
Though in many cases, acting in a likable manner is most desirable, there are some times when you might want to choose to act in a contrary manner. In a positive, healthy peer group, there is rarely any reason or need to behave contrarily. However, in a peer group that supports unhealthy lifestyle decisions and shames those who refuse to participate, nonconformity is the best response. A couple of months ago a friend invited me to a holiday barbecue she was hosting. Since I had just met her recently, I didn't know any of her friends and I had no idea what sort of party it would be. She mentioned there would be alcohol, and that certainly didn't bother me. However, when I actually showed up, I found out that it was a very hedonistic sort of party and that most of them were crazy party animals. There was lots of drinking, drug use, smoking and sensual dancing. Lots of people were taking shots of alcohol, and one fellow asked me to take a shot of vodka with him. I immediately declined and told him that I don't do shots. He quickly informed me that it was very disrespectful to refuse to take a shot, and that I was disrespecting him. Confident in my stance and unaffected by his attempts to shame me, I repeated that I don't do shots and then grabbed another hamburger before going to chat with someone else. Though it certainly wasn't my favorite party, I met a couple nice people and had a good time. By the time I left, a couple people liked me, a couple people disliked me and most people still held a neutral opinion of me.
What concerns me more than what other people think of me is how I act. In the case of those who disliked me, they disliked me because I refused to participate in their drunken revelry. However, since I reject their standards of approval and stand by my actions as being wise and righteous, their unfavorable opinion of me carries no weight. I don't care. In this case I didn't go out of my way to show active disapproval of their lifestyle and carnal hedonism, but even supposing I had, there would be nothing wrong with such a course of action. Sometimes righteous living involves a passive rejection of certain worldviews, and sometimes it involves active opposition to certain ways of acting.
Jesus Christ is the prime example of someone who lived intentionally and always acted righteously. Some people loved Him. Some people hated His guts. Some people remained indifferent. Yet, Jesus was never swayed by people's opinions. Instead, He chose to carry out the Father's will in all things and live righteously, without compromise. Jesus never concerned Himself with how likable He was. So, sometimes He dined with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners without shaming or judging them. Other times, He rebuked the Pharisees for their legalism. Sometimes He showed repentant people mercy and exhorted them to walk in the path of righteousness. Other times, he fashioned a whip and drove people out of the temple for disrespecting God's house. Jesus' main goal was righteous, assertive, consistent living. This resulted in Him being fiercely loved and violently hated.
As the moral example for our lives, we should all strive to adopt the same perspective that Jesus had. Right living is the goal. Approval from God is the one thing that should motivate our actions. People's opinions and the approval of our peer group should hold no power over the ways we choose to act and relate to people. The opinions that we should heed are those of role models and authority figures who have wisdom and insight. Parents, close friends, family members, church elders and mentors can offer valuable insights into how we should act and think about life. Everyone else's opinions really don't matter. Feel free to be likable when you want to be, and enjoy nonconformity when the situation calls for it. No matter what you do, be intentional and refuse to compromise your values.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Triviality of Decontextualized Information
Recently, I began reading a book by Neil Postman entitled Amusing Ourselves to Death. In the book, the author looks at how our modern forms of media have fundamentally changed the way people comprehend and converse about their world. In one section, he explains how the advent of the telegraph in America radically changed what sort of news is communicated to the public. Here are some excerpts from the book:
Neil Postman continues:
I believe that people's natural desire for relevant information is one of the reasons why blogs have become so popular in the last few years. According to this 2004 study, at least 15,000 new blogs are created every day. There are many sorts of various blogs, and there are numerous blogging communities that are united by interests in similar topics. Since modern technology has served to blur geographic distinctions, public discourse finds it distinctions not based on location but by topic and interest. In this way, blogs serve a threefold purpose. First of all, they serve to recontextualize information based on topic and offer commentary and interpretation on the pertinent events of the day. There are numerous economic blogs, law blogs, political blogs, philosophical blogs, personal experience blogs, social observation blogs, art-centric blogs and blogs of every other sort imaginable. Each blog owner skims through the news, other blogs, the internet and even there personal life to present information that is relevant and pertinent to their target audience. Secondly, blogs serve as a forum for discussion and debate about the various topics of the day. Most blogs accept and even encourage active commenters, and those who frequent the blog often find themselves sharing their own opinion about the current posts, which then entice other commenters to comment on the comments. Third, because of the way blogs serve as an effective method of recontextualizing information and offering a public forum for discourse, online communities are formed both on a single blog and often in the context of an entire blogosphere of individual blogs who link to other similar ones.
In this way, modern people have found a way to take the decontextualized information that inundates the web and recontextualize it in a way that serves to offer meaning and a clearer interpretation of its significance. The explosion of new blogs would suggest that people are hungry for information, as long as it presents itself in a relevant and interesting way. Additionally, the blogosphere and internet forums offer people a new way to discuss the pressing issues of our days, consider various opinions and even share their own opinions. With the deluge of daily news we have in the Information Age, what is needed is not more information but a filter to remove the useless information and a recontextualization of the information into useful and digestible bites.
The telegraph may have made the country into "one neighborhood," but it was a peculiar one, populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other.Not only is most of the information that we hear or read in the news not actionable or practically useful in any way, but I would argue that most of it isn't even interesting. Think about it, if you are someone who pays attention to the news, what percent of it even interests you? Personally, I like to be informed about what is happening in the world, but with the exception of occasional stories of special interest to me, or really significant events that will serve as conversation-pieces for a couple of days, 95% of the news is completely banal and trivial to me. Maybe the first time you hear about a flood decimating a town in Indonesia or the first few times you read about sensational crimes or the second time you hear about negotiations with North Korea over their development of nuclear weapons you might be somewhat interested by the news stories. But by the time you've read about the 79th natural disaster of the year, the 400th sensational murder or the 59th article about the nuclear nonproliferation treaty negotiations with North Korea, you become quite inoculated to it all. When everything is sensational and important, suddenly nothing is sensational or important anymore. Because of this, whenever we find an aggregate of decontextualized information, it is nearly impossible to regard it as anything more than trivial. With minor exceptions, it is irrelevant and uninteresting.
Since we live today in just such a neighborhood (now sometimes called a "global village"), you may get a sense of what is meant by context-free information by asking yourself the following question: How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve? For most of us, news of the weather will sometimes have consequences; for investors, news of the stock market; perhaps an occasional story about crime will do it, if by chance it occurred near where you live or involved someone you know. But most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action. This fact is the principle legacy of the telegraph: By generating an abundance of irrelevant information, it dramatically altered what may be called the "information-action ratio."
Neil Postman continues:
The telegraph introduced a kind of public conversation whose form had startling characteristics: Its language was the language of headlines--sensational, fragmented, impersonal. News took the form of slogans, to be noted with excitement, to be forgotten with dispatch. Its language was also entirely discontinuous. One message had no connection to that which preceded or followed it. Each "headline" stood alone as its own context. The receiver of the news had to provide a meaning if he could. The sender was under no obligation to do so. And because of all this, the world as depicted by the telegraph began to appear unmanageable, even undecipherable. The line-by-line, sequential, continuous form of the printed page slowly began to lose its resonance as a metaphor of how knowledge was to be acquired and how the world was to be understood. "Knowing" the facts took on a new meaning, for it did not imply that one understood implications, background, or connections. Telegraphic discourse permitted no time for historical perspectives and gave no priority to the qualitative. To the telegraph, intelligence meant knowing of lots of things, not knowing about them.Since most news is presented as decontextualized information and since the sender has no obligation to provide an appropriate context, each person is forced to contextualize the information themselves and determine what meaning it does or does not have. Because of the decontextualization of the information, it is always necessarily to recontextualize it in some form, either externally or simply mentally. Given the numerous demands of modern life, most people have neither the time nor the desire to manually recontextualize all the new information funneled to us each day, which leads most people to adopt one of two stances towards news and daily public information. The first option is simply to ignore nearly all new information, operating on the presumption that almost none of it is remotely pertinent or interesting. The second option is to search for a source of recontextualized information.
I believe that people's natural desire for relevant information is one of the reasons why blogs have become so popular in the last few years. According to this 2004 study, at least 15,000 new blogs are created every day. There are many sorts of various blogs, and there are numerous blogging communities that are united by interests in similar topics. Since modern technology has served to blur geographic distinctions, public discourse finds it distinctions not based on location but by topic and interest. In this way, blogs serve a threefold purpose. First of all, they serve to recontextualize information based on topic and offer commentary and interpretation on the pertinent events of the day. There are numerous economic blogs, law blogs, political blogs, philosophical blogs, personal experience blogs, social observation blogs, art-centric blogs and blogs of every other sort imaginable. Each blog owner skims through the news, other blogs, the internet and even there personal life to present information that is relevant and pertinent to their target audience. Secondly, blogs serve as a forum for discussion and debate about the various topics of the day. Most blogs accept and even encourage active commenters, and those who frequent the blog often find themselves sharing their own opinion about the current posts, which then entice other commenters to comment on the comments. Third, because of the way blogs serve as an effective method of recontextualizing information and offering a public forum for discourse, online communities are formed both on a single blog and often in the context of an entire blogosphere of individual blogs who link to other similar ones.
In this way, modern people have found a way to take the decontextualized information that inundates the web and recontextualize it in a way that serves to offer meaning and a clearer interpretation of its significance. The explosion of new blogs would suggest that people are hungry for information, as long as it presents itself in a relevant and interesting way. Additionally, the blogosphere and internet forums offer people a new way to discuss the pressing issues of our days, consider various opinions and even share their own opinions. With the deluge of daily news we have in the Information Age, what is needed is not more information but a filter to remove the useless information and a recontextualization of the information into useful and digestible bites.
Friday, September 11, 2009
On Social Tact: Bluntness vs. Ambiguity
Recently, a friend was asking me for advice. He is a pretty amazing guy who happens to have a lot of friends who are girls. In this instance he wasn't feeling good about a particular friendship and decided that he wanted to end the friendship. In pondering the best way to end the friendship, he asked for my advice about how to handle it. There were two main objectives that he had: he wanted to be very clear in stating that he was not interested in continuing any sort of friendship, but he wanted to communicate it in a way that would be respectful and not leave her feeling hurt or rejected.
Of course, to me those seem to be mutually exclusive goals. If you want to be direct and convey that you no longer want to be friends with someone, it's virtually impossible to do that in a nice way. It's easy to add some true statements such as, "I think you're a really nice person", "You have a lot of great traits", or "It's not because I dislike you." However, all of these will come across as disingenuous. Whether you actually mean them or not, all the other person will hear is: "You don't meet my standards for friendship, so I don't want to have anything to do with you." Additionally, attempting to add any such qualifiers to your message will demonstrate lower social value, since they make your message less assertive and make you sound like more of a sycophant.
If you take any sort of direct route in your communication of a breakup (either in a friendship or a romantic relationship), there is virtually no way to prevent hurt feelings. If the other person was invested in the relationship, they will feel hurt. Period. The only choice you have is how you will be perceived in the interaction. Clear, assertive and unapologetic communication will convey strong leadership, social dominance and personal confidence. Mixed messages, excessive qualification or emotionally-catering communication will convey lack of a spine, lack of confidence and a subtext that you are looking for external validation. Which way would you rather be perceived? I'll take the strong and masculine way any day, even if it does border on insensitive.
Alternately, if you prefer to take a less confrontational and emotionally volatile approach, then an indirect route might be a better choice. This route takes less courage and emotional fortitude, but it does subject you to less negative interactions and lower the chances of more substantial fallout. Additionally, it has the bonus of plausible deniability. If you would rather not end a friendship directly, you can simply flake more often, cease to initiate interactions, and selectively ignore/avoid contact. If your friend tries to call you out on any of that, you can give any one of a thousand reasons for why you've been distant. Supposing you are a genuinely busy or social person, then your excuses will sound quite reasonable since they are completely true.
Anyway, no matter how you approach the dissolution of a friendship, there are no nice ways to go about it. It seems that handling things directly or indirectly are your only two options. The direct approach is virtually guaranteed to hurt your ex-friends feelings and self-esteem. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe there are dozens of nice, positive, upliftings ways to say, "I don't ever want to see you again."
Of course, to me those seem to be mutually exclusive goals. If you want to be direct and convey that you no longer want to be friends with someone, it's virtually impossible to do that in a nice way. It's easy to add some true statements such as, "I think you're a really nice person", "You have a lot of great traits", or "It's not because I dislike you." However, all of these will come across as disingenuous. Whether you actually mean them or not, all the other person will hear is: "You don't meet my standards for friendship, so I don't want to have anything to do with you." Additionally, attempting to add any such qualifiers to your message will demonstrate lower social value, since they make your message less assertive and make you sound like more of a sycophant.
If you take any sort of direct route in your communication of a breakup (either in a friendship or a romantic relationship), there is virtually no way to prevent hurt feelings. If the other person was invested in the relationship, they will feel hurt. Period. The only choice you have is how you will be perceived in the interaction. Clear, assertive and unapologetic communication will convey strong leadership, social dominance and personal confidence. Mixed messages, excessive qualification or emotionally-catering communication will convey lack of a spine, lack of confidence and a subtext that you are looking for external validation. Which way would you rather be perceived? I'll take the strong and masculine way any day, even if it does border on insensitive.
Alternately, if you prefer to take a less confrontational and emotionally volatile approach, then an indirect route might be a better choice. This route takes less courage and emotional fortitude, but it does subject you to less negative interactions and lower the chances of more substantial fallout. Additionally, it has the bonus of plausible deniability. If you would rather not end a friendship directly, you can simply flake more often, cease to initiate interactions, and selectively ignore/avoid contact. If your friend tries to call you out on any of that, you can give any one of a thousand reasons for why you've been distant. Supposing you are a genuinely busy or social person, then your excuses will sound quite reasonable since they are completely true.
Anyway, no matter how you approach the dissolution of a friendship, there are no nice ways to go about it. It seems that handling things directly or indirectly are your only two options. The direct approach is virtually guaranteed to hurt your ex-friends feelings and self-esteem. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe there are dozens of nice, positive, upliftings ways to say, "I don't ever want to see you again."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
