relationships · social philosophy

Compatibility and the spectrum of cynicism.

I would argue that the main thing the prevents people from getting into relationships isn’t a lack of basic compatibility with others – but a mismatching of their level emotional cynicism and bad timing.

Let me explain.

Basic compatibility

There are some core things are basic deal breakers about whether someone is a romantic match for us or not, things like:

  • Whether they’re a smoker or not
  • Their level of exercise
  • Whether they do drugs or not
  • Their age
  • Their employment and/or social standing
  • Their political views
  • Their religious views

Different people are going to have different deal breakers. Many of us would never consider dating a smoker – but some people are ok with it. Some people couldn’t stand the thought of dating someone with an opposing political ideology, others are political apathetic and don’t care.

The point is – of the entire dating pool, there’s a subsection of people of people who you’re actually going to have some semblance of realistic compatibility with.

Now, if you’re an intelligent progressive-minded person living in a small shittown – then it’s likely that your eligible dating pool will be unworkably small – and working with that is not what I wish to deal with here.

For somebody in a decent sized progressive city – your compatible dating pool is still going to contain hundreds or thousands of prospects.

Chemistry

After basic compatibility is met – there’s still whether the two of you get along or not.

It’s possible that you both have similar lifestyles and share similar world views – but you go on a date, and you just don’t get along. You don’t find their jokes funny, or you finding their flirting wooden. Maybe they have a certain physical appearance that you just don’t find attractive.

But even if after we eliminate all of these – I would still say that people in decent sized progressive cities still have a healthy sized dating pool of people they’re compatible with, and are attracted to – so what prevents people from getting into relationships?

Perhaps people are too picky

Let’s get this point out of the way first. It’s plausible that many people are being too picky. They want someone who earns $100k a year, and has rock hard abs, and is super intelligent, and likes dogs, and shares their taste in movies, and always knows the right thing to make them laugh. If they’re not considering dating anyone who doesn’t meet all of these criteria – then perhaps they narrow their dating pool too small to be workable.

I’ll concede that this may be the case for some people – but I don’t think it’s the primary factor that prevents most people from forming relationships.

Enter the emotional cynicism spectrum

People, in a given moment, have an emotional state that fits on a spectrum of distrusting and cynical on one end, and joyous and willing to love on the other.

Being more cynical will mean when a guy says hello in the supermarket line, the person is more likely to dismiss them as a creep or give a curt response. Whereas existing on the more open to love side of the spectrum will more likely result in a friendly conversation that leads to a date.

The point here is – whether this date happens or not – isn’t due to their inherent compatibility, but their respective emotional states at the time.

People’s day to day life experiences affect their emotional state. For example, being sent some abusive messages or being ghosted will likely make someone more cynical – while having a stranger pay for your bus when you were out of cash will make you more willing to love.

Our emotional state is likely to fluctuate. You go on one friendly date – it goes well – you become more willing to love. That allows a date with a different person to occur. You get ghosted. You become more cynical.

It’s this dynamic that ultimately makes finding a mate seem difficult, despite the apparent abundance of potential romantic partners – we may be just meeting each other at the wrong times; had you met that person a week later – the date might have gone entirely differently.

There’s a couple more points I’d make:

  • Both partner’s being open to love isn’t what’s necessary for a pairing to occur. I would argue that both partners being cynical can also allow a pairing to occur – as both go in with a more standoffish stance – and both feeling like that’s what they deserve. I would say though – that this kind of relationship is ultimately going to be less satisfying – or, at least not what this writer is looking for.
  • I think there’s also a similar timing problem in terms of social maturity. For example we might be meeting people who we’re fundamentally compatible with, but who still find upfront communication awkward. This kind of timing problem doesn’t have the same fluctuation that the emotional cynicism does; it tends to be something that develops in a linear fashion.

The cute optimist in me says that in considering this – maintaining an optimistic emotional state in response to events that might make you cynical is the important takeaway here – as it’s the being optimistic that is going to be opening the doors.

That said – it’s good to go in optimistic, but with an attitude of detachment – anticipating that there’s a decent chance that something won’t pan out. That atleast lets that eventuality not affect your emotional state as much as it might have.

It’s hard to say what this means in practice. Say you’re arranging a date for a Friday night. A common likelyhood is that they’ll flake on the date. I guess a healthy technique to manage that outcome – is to have also made plans for what you’ll do if that happens, one that doesn’t involve acting cynically yourself. For example you might make plans of ‘If this date doesn’t happen, I’ll go for a run instead’. I don’t think this would necessarily negate all negative emotional experience – but it’s the best you can do.

It’s funny – I feel like the tail end of this post might spread a little cynicism. But I think it does objectively demonstrate a healthy and emotionally mature thinking. I would hope this has an uplifting effect in knowing that there are others out there with with this kind of emotional consideration.

Advertisements
relationships · social philosophy

Thoughts about #ihave

The #ihave hashtag is a response to the #metoo hashtag. The #metoo hashtag shares stories of (primary women) people’s experience being the victims of sexual assault or harassment.

The #ihave hashtag is a response to calls of ‘Where are all the men who have commited these offences?’.

Here’s one such tweet:

This Facebook post here is the one that I saw first – of men using the hashtag to admit their own role.

I’ve long thought that the conversation about sexual assault has lacked the perpertrators side of it, and that ultimately isn’t helpful.

This Ted talk here was produced a few years ago – it’s very moving, and I think the conversation needs to sound more like this. The problem with hearing just the voices of victims is that it doesn’t help us understand why all these assaults are taking place.

There’s a reason perpertrators are reluctant to tell there story of course – there’s a huge social stigma to being labelled a creep or a rapist.

So when I saw this hashtag being a thing – I was faced with a binary decision. Do I jump on board and admit that I’ve done creepy things before, or do I conciously ignore it?

Seeing this as an opportunity to make the change that I want to see – more honest and pragmatic dialog around sexual assault – I jumped on board.

I first posted on Twitter – which is relatively safe. Although it uses my real name and is easily tracable back to me – I don’t really have any followers there. My Facebook on the other hand is a different story – I’m friends with all of my family there, women I have potential romatic possibilities with, and some, but not many, people from work.

I ultimately decided it would be more effective posting there and did it. The message I posted was:

I feel nervous posting this – but I think it’s genuinely, and perhaps a more difficult part of the conversation that needs to be happen if we want to make progress, so here goes: #ihave. I’m hoping this hashtag catches on.

I made it public, so it would show up when other people are exploring the hashtag.

It’s worth acknowledging that the post is fairly coy – making no reference at all to sexual assault or other violations.

I was immediately asked by my brother what it was in reference to, and I had to clarify it was in reference to sexual assault/harrasment.

The response I got was supportive. Supportive messages and heart reacts, from women I respect. No nasty messages or comments.

I observed two men within my immediate Facebook network posted similar posts, and at least two more in the networks beyond that – but I didn’t look especially hard to find them.

I wouldn’t say the experience was relieving, although I am grateful and impressed at the grace demonstrated in the responses. I was constantly checking my Facebook and Twitter feeds for new mentions of #ihave, and getting into arguments with people on Twitter. It’s one of those conversations where speaking up is good, but it’s better to make a couple of bold and sensitive comments, than to create noise with all the rest.

There’s also the knowledge that there are probably plenty of people have probably seen the post, but haven’t said anything. They’ll now be wondering ‘Just what did David do?’ and look at my sideways. The whole thing makes my social situation a bit more complicated. (Note: The details of what infractions I’ve committed I’m not going to get into here. It’s a sensitive topic, and just as your wouldn’t insist a #metoo talks about their experiences publicly with strangers – the same goes for #ihaves. A retrospective edit: it occurs to me that for people who know me – they might find this lack of specificity disconcerting and be unsure about how wary to be of me – so to clarify – nothing violent, no penis in vagina rape, no drugging; there has been unwanted physical advances that they were unappreciated were soon made apparent to me, and other behaviour that has creeped women out).

I would also stress that it’s not like the #metoo campaign brought me to some sudden and recent profound realisation. This is something I’ve been working with for years – it’s just now that the #ihave trend gave an explicit window to say something – the other choice being consciously ignoring it.

I didn’t participate out of an act of self-flagellation – I participated because I want more light to be shone on this very much unspoken about part of the conversation.

Speaking broadly – regarding my emotional and mental wellbeing, my social life, my sense of life satisfation – feelings of guilt around my interactions with women are a significant, but not the only hazard I’ve been dealing with. There’s also addiction, depression, and selfishness/lazyness.

These are all things I’ve been managing, with ups and downs over the last several years. Things that have helped have been exercise, a good diet, not smoking weed, private journalling and vulnerable conversations with people I trust.

Recently things have been going quite well for me – I’ve been motivated, my exercise is going well, and I’ve been having good romantic interactions with women (including one recently where I explained ‘It’s really important for me to use my words to scope out how you feel about a thing. I feel much more comfortable doing it that way.’).

So while I do think I did a good thing by participating – I also I feel like I’ve potentially jepordised my own emotional and social wellbeing, and it did set me in a bit of spin. I didn’t have a particularly productive day. I do feel a bit better now that I’ve written all this – writing is one of my ways of maintaining a healthy emotional state.

In terms of improving our sexual culture for future – for our children – I would say the single biggest thing we need to do is talk more about consent. Give examples of how to seek and how to give or decline consent.

In terms of improving our own wellbeing for traumas of the past – I do think that forgetting things is a healthy mental mechanism for getting over trauma, and that’s where I’m not really interested in reliving or rehashing a lot of this stuff. For my own well being, I want to keep moving forward.

I know that there’s a lot of people who think that’s selfish and irresponsible of me. But I don’t think continuing to live in guilt or shame is going to improve anything for anyone – bar people who get a sadistic sense of satisfaction at seeing people in misery.

My advice for both #ihaves and #metoos is to not keep rolling around in the gutter if you don’t have to. You only get one life – it’s not like at the end they’re going to say ‘you got a shitty roll, here, have another go’. I say the best way to heal is to keep reliving your trauma but go out and have good, healing experiences that set the new normal.

I guess what I really mean when I say I don’t want to keep rehashing this stuff – is that I’m not keen to keep writing on this topic in an open and public manner, at least for now. It’s stressful and generates a lot of social uncertainty. I’d happily engage in some kind of research project relating to my experiences where I’ve good a chance to tell my side of the story. And I guess gauging how things go – I could keep writing about it – but I do have other things I’m doing with my life. That’s at least where things are at two days after participating.

There’s a couple of consent related things I produced a while ago – which I never posted (in large part, because I was very self conscious about it), so I’ll probably post those – but from where I am now – I don’t feel like this is an issue I want to keep engaging with. (Unless it’s talking about tricks for making consent and social rejection fun and less awkward – in which case I’m totally into that – because that’s a fun topic.).

One more thing – in my own experiences with being the victim of workplace bullying I know how powerful an apology is for moving forward. An apology seems like a simple thing – but I think most of us find apologising difficult – probably out of a sense of pride and thinking that they’re not necessary. For anyone who has been on the receiving end of my advances – I genuinely am sorry – and I hope this piece is demonstrative of that; I wish you peace and happiness for your life.

politics · social philosophy

Tinder’s #menprovement campaign is looking like some cheap misandric bullshit.

Tinder has launched a new advertising/social awareness campaign, they’re calling #menprovement.

22141089_1413388888730892_1312093210497322896_n

The premise is that there a lot of douchebags on Tinder, and so there’s a scientifically themed effort to improve the quality of men on Tinder.

It features videos of women scientists like these:

And charts like these:

Now obviously this is intended to be a fairly lighthearted kind of campaign – but humour like this doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The reason that this campaign is considered a good idea, is because there is genuine sentiment that there are too many douchey men on Tinder.

A starting point – let’s acknowledge the existence of douchey men and abuse women face on the internet.

I want to be clear. I acknowledge that women on the internet, and on dating apps like Tinder, likely face a lot of verbal/written abuse in the face of rejection, sleazy messages, unsolicited dick pics etc.

I’m generally of the opinion that men and women have opposite problems on online dating – where women suffer through unwanted attention – men suffer from a vacuum of attention, and loneliness.

If we consider the wider issue of rape culture / consent culture – it’s very reasonable to consider conducting social campaigns aimed at changing the way people behave, and in this case, the way men behave in the context of a dating app.

So getting that out of the way – I acknowledge that there’s a problem of douchey behaviour from men on dating apps like Tinder, and it would be a good thing to improve on that.

Tinder’s campaign does not address actual douchey behaviour

This image is probably the egregious example:

Wanting a partner who has a job and is nice to your mother? Great – that’s just the kind of thing we want to encourage.

Being six feet tall? – Is that really the problem with Tinder? That there’s not enough tall men? Are short men guilty of being douchebags?

I’m not going to pretend that we shouldn’t have physical qualities that we find attractive, and I’m not offended by the proposition that many women prefer a man taller than them.

The issue I have with this image is the gross insensitivity it demonstrates.

For example, where I think the fat acceptance movement is dangerous; I think obesity should be treated as a health condition, not an acceptable lifestyle, I think all people should be treated with respect – and not be the subject of cruel jokes.

So while I think it’s ok for someone to have a preference for slim women for example – I don’t think it’s ok to make fat jokes. The same goes for short men – show some sensitivity.

Let’s examine some qualities of what Tinder considers douches

 

  • A self employed CEO
  • Has a bluetooth
  • Tips minimum
  • Late because charging vape
  • Is into fitness, and you should be too
  • Posts gym sessions on instagram
  • ‘This body wasn’t built for monogamy’
  • Eggplant emojis as opener
  • Come hungry as closer

Of this list, I’d say tipping minimum is perhaps the only actual douche behavior, and eggplant emoji, depending on whether you’re into that kind of thing.

Here’s where Tinder needs to get it straight:

There’s nothing wrong with being into the gym, being non-monogamous, or owning your own business. 

It’s straight up misandric bullshit to try shame men for possessing these qualities – things that they’re probably quite proud of.

If I’m to hazard a guess here – that these stereotypes are seen as acceptable targets – because they’re ‘successful men’ – and can therefore take take being taken down a notch.

However – what Tinder needs to realise – is that it’s not just men fitting the stereotype, or men who water rolls of the duck’s back of,  that sees these videos.

I think we need to consider men in the context of having higher rates of suicide, and higher rates of computer and video game addiction. Within that context – we shouldn’t be trying to tear men’s sense of self esteem and value away from them. If men get that from owning their own business, or working out – that that should be encouraged, not criticised for being douchey.

What it suggests to me – is that Tinder’s willingness to go along with this campaign – means that they don’t value men’s feelings nearly as highly as women’s. That again reinforces the social norm of male disposability.

Douchey behaviour that Tinder could have used.

The thing is – this could have been quite an interesting and positive campaign – if Tinder had seeked to address actual toxic or unappealing behaviour.

Here’s a quick list, if they need inspiration:

  • Boring first messages, ‘Sup’, ‘How are you’ guy.
  • Main hobbies are playing video games and trolling on the internet, and nothing outside of that guy.
  • Ten days unwashed dishes guy.
  • Responds with abuse at rejection guy.
  • Only wants to talk about you guy.
  • Only wants to talk about him guy.
  • Never suggests going on a date guy.
  • Insists on a first date at your place guy.
  • Is cheating on his girlfriend guy.
  • Selfish lover guy.

How women can foster non-douchey behaviour Tinder

Let’s get this ball rolling.

  • Send the first message. Set the frame for the conversation. Want flirty banter? Want a challenging argument? Want a standard get to know each other conversation? Your message determines that.
  • Unmatch severe douches. Train men with negative reinforcement.
  • Call out mild douchey behaviour. See if there’s a correction of behaviour.
  • Respond to desired behaviour with positive reinforcement. Personally, I like the 😍 emoji

God. This must be what being a Cosmopoliton writer must feel like.

‘But it’s just a joke David, stop taking it so seriously’.

Jokes are never just jokes. Jokes are generally funny because they have a kernel of truth (or what the joke teller purports to be the truth).

Just like how telling racist jokes creates a hostile environment for black people, or telling sexist jokes creates a hostile environment for women  – these guys of jokes create an hostile environment for men.

Now – I would suggest that there’s a brand of feminism that is ok with this – men need to be taken down a notch because either that’s justice, or because that makes it easier for women to achieve equality. I don’t want to get get into this line of argument here – but I would make two points – that this is likely to be not effective, it’s just likely to cause division between men and women, and that this philosophy directly contradicts the argument that ‘feminism is for the interests of both men and women’.

Reactions from the internet

The reactions on their Twitter and Facebook threads has been almost entirely negative – mostly pointing out that it’s sexist and douchey in itself. There’s also a lot of comments from men saying how they don’t get matches – would would seem to confirm comment I made in the first section.

This does take us to a point of personal conflict for me. While I clearly agree with the commenters in this instance – in other gendered hot topics on the internet – there is often a reaction of faux victimisation from what can be fairly considered alt-right types. (I’m struggling to think of examples here right now though – maybe revisit this later).

Bottom Line

A pretty gross campaign.

Not the right way to go about creating a society of confident, respectful men, at all.

I’m curious to hear from my feminist friends about this. While Tinder has faced a bit of criticism on social media about this – the feminist community as a whole are quite quiet about it. There’s definitely no social media storm about it – which does suggest that people simply don’t care about this kind of toxic gender dynamic.

There is though – the chance that this is a long running deeper social critique – that explores things like gender norms around height attraction, and all will be revealed in time. If I was taking a bet, I’d bet against that happening though.

relationships · social philosophy · Uncategorized

So it’s apparent that they’re not interested, now what?

It’s a common theme in contemporary dating, you’ve been talking, you’ve been on a date, and… they haven’t messaged you back. Have they just forgotten? Are they feeling anxious? Are they just not into you? I’ve written about this here.

But what’s the next step? You figure they’re not into you, what do you do now, to improve things best for you.

Here’s a few simple tips:

  • Unfriend them on Facebook, unfollow them on Twitter, Instagram, etc.
  • Turn off chat on Facebook.
  • Delete the conversation thread on Facebook.
  • Delete their number.
  • Delete the conversation thread on SMS.
  • Delete any emails you’ve exchanged.

turn off            delete

Sounds drastic?

Not really.

The most important thing to do now – is what’s best for you. Seeing them on your newsfeed, or seeing that they’re active online, is just going to trigger a twinge of rejection.

By deleting their social media presence, they’re out of sight out of mind, and you begin to forget.

I’ve been rejected many times in the past. One particularly poignant heart break, I wrote about here.

The thing with all of these heartbreaks, is at the time it feels intense. These days, unless I’m actively trying to remember times I’ve been rejected, I don’t even think about them.

That’s the state you’re going for, not thinking of them, and to do that, delete the messages and unfollow them on social media.

 

social philosophy

A new form of nihilism

Nihilism is the philosophy that life has no intrinsic meaning. Nihilism commonly then leads to conclusions like:

  • Let’s just kill ourselves now.
  • Let’s have a life of hedonism and enjoying yourself while you can.
  • Actually, you’re probably going to enjoy yourself more if find some sense of purpose.

But the common narrative around nihilism tends to a personal sense of purpose – about the individual’s lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose.

With the election of Donald Trump, and its repurcussions regarding action on climate change, demonstrating how apparently stupid, selfish, ignorant or self destructive a huge chunk of our society is, I think a more deep seated nihilism is seating in.

That is – when talking about combating climate change, from the perspective of the human race as a whole, it’s seen as a good thing for humans to survive, or for things not to be unpleasant for us in the near future.

But given the apparent selfishness and stupidity of people, I do start wondering maybe it really doesn’t matter if it all goes to custard. Of course care – but from a nihilistic perspective things might be easier for me if I just didn’t. 

This College Humor video sums it up well:

social philosophy

I used to believe the 2012 prophecy.

It should be apparent from my blog and for anyone who knows me, that I prefer to take a rational, evidence based approach to things.

I’ve recently been considering that truth shouldn’t trump all, and that if someone gets comfort out of say, believing horoscopes, then why should rationalism seek to destroy that? On the otherhand – I think the willingness to believe conspiracy theories, also has people believing that climate change isn’t happening, and that’s concerning to me.

What might not be apparent – is that I didn’t always take a rationalist approach, and it’s easy for me myself to forget that.

I used to genuinely believe the 2012 Mayan prophecy. If you’re not already familiar with it – it was a prediction that ‘the world as we know it’ will end on December 21 2012 – the date that the Mayan 5,126 year calendar ends.

mayan-calendar

What ‘the world as we know it’ ending means wasn’t exactly clear. For me, at the time it meant a collapse of the global system of governance and an anarchistic uprising.

My belief in this prophecy did have real world effects. Most concretely in that, when I was 18 years old (in 2004), I took out an interest free overdraft with no intent of paying it back – the global financial system will have collapsed by then. Other shortsighted decision making – like my reckless disregard for getting criminal convictions for graffiti also stemmed from this belief that it wouldn’t matter in eight years.

By the time 2012 came around – I had long stopped believing the prophecy.

This part of my life is a useful look in at how beliefs are formed, and why people hold the beliefs they do.

For me, a big part of believing the 2012 prophecy was that a lot of people who I thought were cool around me also either believed it, or enjoyed talking about it, and from memory, I didn’t hear much of a counter opinion to it..

I think this shows that the kinds of beliefs people have about things, does depend on how common the belief is in the people around them, and also how offering countering beliefs in a civil and persuasive manner is probably genuinely useful in grounding people’s beliefs, even if it doesn’t change their mind at the time.

It also give insight into why someone will hold a belief, for me, it’s because I liked the idea of this great prophecy, and a new world populated by people like me.

I think belief in especially end of world prophecies, but also global elite conspiracies are indicative of a cognitive shortcut – it’s much easier to imagine the world coming to an end, or some dramatic change – that is to image what the world is going to look like in ten years, or twenty years, or thirty years, maintaining the status quo.

So I guess I should be more sympathetic to people who I think hold irrational or baseless beliefs – but at the same time this actually encourages me to speak out more. I might have made less bad decisions if someone had taken the time to explain to me that there was no objective reason to believe that the 2012 prophecy was true. But of course that would have me then questioning whether my friends were as cool as I thought they were.

meta · social philosophy

Should I share my posts on reddit?

I have a conflicted relationship with reddit.

My current most immediate thoughts of reddit is that it’s a toxic, addictive and mostly unhealthy internet subculture/habit.

But, there are some really cool subreddits – /r/highqualitygifs is perhaps my favourite, producing such beauties as this:

I’ve also written before about /r/wholesomememes.

 

There’s other cool creative subreddits like /r/photoshopbattles or /r/writingprompts.

There’s good quality image subreddits like /r/historyporn.

Reddit is also a good first place for location based information, eg. /r/newzealand.

 

I have just created a new reddit account – where I actively filter a lot of the popular subreddits – /r/the_donald, /r/politics, etc.

And maybe I shouldn’t be browsing reddit at all – but I have different question.

 

It would be good for the visibility of my blog and other projects to be posting links to sites like reddit. There are plenty of subreddits where my posts would be relevant. /r/theoryofreddit perhaps.

However, I feel conflicted because do I really want my content circulating amongst a toxic culture?

Self promotion seems icky somehow. Lets consider the approach that we’re all really vying for is people’s attention. You could suggest that to improve the quality (the signal!) of what people are consuming, would be a good thing, and so that sharing your material would be a good thing.