|
I wanted to start with something called “starting a relationship” but I can’t really approach this subject without going deep into “giving and taking” territory. I know it’s a rather barbarian way to look at it, but from my experience, there’s a golden rule that applies to ALL my past relationships:
The more you show you like someone, the less they will like you, and vice-versa.
Of course, this only applies in romantic relationships, and if you do not agree, then it’s probably because you achieved a good balance between how much you like/do for your partner and how much they like/do for you, which is great! But most of the times it’s not like that. In 90% of relationships, one person is more involved than the other. And this thing can abruptly change without even the slightest of warning.
What exactly do I mean by this? Well, let’s start with some statistics: Let’s say I had 24 relationships. In 20 of them, the girl was more interested in me than I was in her. Most of them ended up after a short period of time, because I’d break up with them, or they’d break up with me because of lack of interest on my part. The 4 others, I was more interested in them than they were in me. One of those for lasted for 2 years, with a lot of effort in my part to not let all my feelings surface too much. 1 of them, I got rejected early on, and it stayed like that until this day, and the other two, I got rejected at first, but then, as time passed, and my feelings changed, their feelings changed also. The less I showed I cared about them, the more they cared about me, which was just disturbing to watch: The girls that I’ve chased after with so much glee, and have struck me down without hesitating were now asking me out, and asking to spend more time with me. I was horrified.
Not to mention that you can observe these kind of differences even with small changes during a relationship. If you start acting a bit less-caring, you’ll probably get a positive response. Why? Because we all want what we can’t have. We don’t like having things served to us on a platter. That’s why. Or at least I think that’s why, because any other explanation would involve something else than “human nature” so it would mean that there’s something wrong with ME, and we just can’t have that. (kidding)
So to sum up this first part… I’m not saying that you shouldn’t show their affection to someone else, by all means, do it, but don’t show a lot more affection than they do, because if that’s the case, you might be pushing them away. I know that this works on me, I always lose interest in girls that care too much for me. I’m a bastard, I know, I wish I was different but I can’t be helped. I want to work for my relationship, to MAKE her like me, want me, love me, not to just let her have me…
There is so much more that can be said regarding this, but my goal is not to just create walls of text, so I’ll be poking at this subject as time goes on, don’t worry.
…more to come.
|
Hmm, that's certainly a recurring theme in relationships. I think you're onto something with quantities of interest having to be not TOO different from one side to the other. Isn't it like any social interaction though? It can only flourish if both sides reach a sort of (usually unsaid) mutual consensus concerning the tone of the interaction, degrees of closeness, what is to be expected, etc.
I find the comment on wanting to work for what you get to be compelling as well. Obviously if you receive affection without 'deserving' it you will feel patronized or, more likely, that the standards of the other are low, which makes their affection much less meaningful. It's like if someone is always agreeing with what is said around them; their opinion just starts to lose credibility and value.
|
This is an interesting point. Care to speculate a little more about it?
|
Hm, I find this funny cause this applies to me in my life right now haha. Like, I've liked this girl for a few weeks (it's a lot more complicated than that but we'll just go with that) and asked her out last night. Well she said yes and dunno, like it just feels weird. I think I need some sort of challenge in my life cause like it doesn't feel right. Although I'm not gonna do anything dumb lol, I'm just hoping this feeling flies over soon
|
United States24805 Posts
Correlation? Possibly? Causation? I really don't think so, or at least mostly no.
Elements of truth perhaps.
|
this is why I hate everyone. So they will all like me 
|
interesting read, looking forward to part 2
On May 10 2009 01:47 DeathSpank wrote:this is why I hate everyone. So they will all like me
lol
|
On May 10 2009 01:47 DeathSpank wrote:this is why I hate everyone. So they will all like me
I'm inspired by this.
|
When people's intentions are fixed on us it inspires a prey reflex of eschewing their attention. It's not strictly correct to say that caring less = more attention...but it is indeed quite often the case that being a little more self-controlled does a lot to encourage a girl.
|
On May 10 2009 01:37 micronesia wrote:
Correlation? Possibly? Causation? I really don't think so, or at least mostly no.
Elements of truth perhaps.
Haha stats jargon!
The op was kinda confusing at first but I'm gonna try to not care and then see if more girls like me! But what is the line between caring and not caring? You can still talk to them and not care, right?
|
United States24805 Posts
On May 10 2009 02:22 il0seonpurpose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 01:37 micronesia wrote:
Correlation? Possibly? Causation? I really don't think so, or at least mostly no.
Elements of truth perhaps. Haha stats jargon! I've never taken/studied statistics to be honest... but whenever conducting a study you have to pay close attention to when you are finding correlations, and why they do not necessarily imply the connection you were looking for.
|
On May 10 2009 01:16 Talkative wrote:
If you start acting a bit less-caring, you’ll probably get a positive response. Why? Because we all want what we can’t have. We don’t like having things served to us on a platter. That’s why. Or at least I think that’s why, because any other explanation would involve something else than “human nature” so it would mean that there’s something wrong with ME, and we just can’t have that. (kidding)
I think the reason why showing less care for a girl means they'll like you more is because girls want a partner that is desirable. A desirable man has a pick of the women, and therefore if he doesn't care about a particular girl it's because he can get equal or better than that so there's no need making any effort on his part. This argument is slightly circular in its logic though, like groupthink, but I still think it makes sense.
You've got to look at the reason why people don't like things served to them on a platter. Normally because free things usually aren't good, and it's this line of thinking that I guess was programmed into our brain thousands of years ago.
If you're being needy (taking it to the extreme of caring more for a girl than she cares for you) then it shows that you have little value as you apparently can't get a relationship with anyone else.
I think it works differently for guys and girls as well, when a girl cares for a guy more than he cares for her, it's not as big a deal as the other way round. Again I think this can be explained by how our ancestors lived in their societies tens of thousands of years ago.
|
This isn't a new idea. This is the exact same thing as The Mystery Method, which basically started to question the age old mindset of being the "nice guy" to women.
|
|
|
I thought this was going to be about weight.
But it's true, nice guys finish last
|
Nice guys who have self-confidence and suaveness finish first.
|
On May 10 2009 05:28 Insane Lane wrote:
Nice guys who have self-confidence and suaveness finish first.
assholes just sings so much better 
|
On May 10 2009 02:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 02:22 il0seonpurpose wrote:On May 10 2009 01:37 micronesia wrote:
Correlation? Possibly? Causation? I really don't think so, or at least mostly no.
Elements of truth perhaps. Haha stats jargon! I've never taken/studied statistics to be honest... but whenever conducting a study you have to pay close attention to when you are finding correlations, and why they do not necessarily imply the connection you were looking for.
Yep, alot of things are possibilities and you simply can't assume relationships are causations. The only one I know that the teacher told me was smoking and lung cancer but I'm doubtful of even that
|
United States24805 Posts
On May 10 2009 08:58 il0seonpurpose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2009 02:23 micronesia wrote:On May 10 2009 02:22 il0seonpurpose wrote:On May 10 2009 01:37 micronesia wrote:
Correlation? Possibly? Causation? I really don't think so, or at least mostly no.
Elements of truth perhaps. Haha stats jargon! I've never taken/studied statistics to be honest... but whenever conducting a study you have to pay close attention to when you are finding correlations, and why they do not necessarily imply the connection you were looking for. Yep, alot of things are possibilities and you simply can't assume relationships are causations. The only one I know that the teacher told me was smoking and lung cancer but I'm doubtful of even that
This doesn't make sense to me...
You mean, you want an example of proven causation? I think from a technical standpoint it's difficult to damn near impossible to prove that there is 100% causation... but you can get your degree of certainty high enough that any doubt is negligible. I doubt it's that hard to find examples of this type of case.
|
I would just like be a total faggot and say
DUH
sorry, had to do it ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
