= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
What is the undesired effect of monthly?
Only the slight awkwardness feeling I get when I see template postings that seem a little forced. I don't really mind if you make them. Do you, well, have something to say in this one?
I was trying to think of what I could say and was coming up with "So, what are the absolute deal breakers that you just will not stand for in a relationship?" and "Does anyone else find that hair style strongly influences their degree of attraction to someone?"
Style in particular not all that much, but I find that my "attraction" response is closely tied to my more generic "I want to touch that" response, so people who look pettable (not gelled or sprayed, not with completely shaved heads, who wash their hair, not with dreadlocks, etc. etc.) will tend to be more attractive than their less pettable counterparts.
I've specifically been told by a female friend to select clothes that look nice to touch.
Yes, do that. But also wash your hair and don't slather it in goop.
Is it ok if it's boyishly mussed?
This may or may not work on you. If you want my opinion in particular, I would require visual data (i.e. a picture of you with and one without "boyishly mussed" hair).
Sorry, I was being jokingly rhetorical but I guess it didn't come through. It's moot anyway. I don't think I'd put effort into my hair beyond the occasional shampoo and once-every-six-months haircut if "boyishly mussed" weren't a common preference.
You only cut your hair once every six months! Even if you sport a rather lengthy mane (which I'm assuming you do) once every six months seems way too infrequent.
Six months isn't enough time to grow a lengthy mane! As I recall, it took much longer than that for me to grow my ponytail, and various internet sources confirm that hair grows at about six inches per year. (I haven't had a haircut since late 2006, but my hair seems to have maxed out in length some time ago.)
In the past I've had haircuts roughly that frequently. On the tail end my hair was a bit long but there wasn't any noticeable difference in romantic luck (not that there was ever very much to speak of).
That sounds a really honest answer and it's more or less the one I expected. Would you call it an ugh field, or something less significant?
ETA: Sorry, you edited your post while I was writing this one, so now mine doesn't make much sense.
ETA 2: Not really sure if you're making fun of me with those suggested questions.
Now me directing you to the edit doesn't make sense.
Those questions are not to you or particularly a response to you at all. They are the brainstorming that I had done and considered posting before I replied to you. What does interest me is that someone actually say something about the relationships in this thread. Because so far it has all been talking about talking about relationships. Which is lame.
The part of the 'Conversation Starter' role that is most valuable is that of leading the conversation as it begins so that it has a chance to get primed!
Agreed. This been a rather hilarious thread.
And fortunately not an intolerably irrational one just yet!
Both less significant in the sense that it isn't a strong feeling and in that ugh fields represent a different kind of thing. They inhibit thinking about a topic rather than just being representations of a preference. In this case the feeling represents the thought "Why is someone starting a topic without having something to say about it? That's pointless."
(You may have missed the completed version of the the grandparent. I insta-edited after posting.)
I agree. Thus. But I see your point. Next time, I'll do what you've suggested.
"Lushness" is an umbrella quality that covers my preferences on just about every level, including hairstyle.
Does it apply to physique? (I'm trying to imagine how it applies to things that aren't eyelashes and grass here. I obviously have a less developed 'lush' concept!)
Yeah, but regarding physique I guess "voluptuous" would be more specific.
...is this exactly the kind of death spiral Vladimir_M was talking about?
ETA: On the broader subject of attraction, I've often lamented the fact that I can't decide who I'm attracted to. I've tried, and it doesn't work. Has anyone else has success with this? I feel like I'd be swimming in True Loves if not for this seemingly unalterable aspect of my personality.
Is it a matter of being a little attracted to many people but you can't pick between them? Or that you know you are attracted to people but don't realise it at the time? Something else?
This is a whole different world to me. I feel it as, well, damn near a literal pull. My body would move physically closer to them if I did not hold it pack. That said there were times long in the past (I hope) that I really didn't notice that I was attracted to someone until months after when I deduced it from my behavioural patterns.
Have you tried going and making out with the people you may be attracted to? Usually a sure fire way to tell. This is partially, shall we say, "tongue in cheek".
Wow, major wording fail. I meant "I wish I could have control over who I'm attracted to, but I reliably don't (at all)." The wishing is the result of there being nearly no one who fits my other preferences (brains, sense of humor) while also being really physically attractive. I've met lots of girls who are just short of whatever the tipping point is... but something about whatever variant of OCD I have makes me obsess over those shortcomings until I can't think about anything else and I have to end the relationship.
If it were me, I would diagnose one of three problems. Unreasonably high standards, high standards and low incidence, or standards and unrecognized fear of intimacy.
I have trouble with the last two. My solution to both is to talk to new people I am attracted to physically more often. First impressions don't always go anywhere, but I need to increase my number of attempts.
Yes, that is my strategy as well.
Have you considered an upper limit to your number of experiments, to settle for some optimal stopping point? Or some method to increase the quality of experimental subjects?
Neither of these will resolve a fear of intimacy issue, of course! And I do hate to suggest someone alter their standards without knowing for myself that they are unreasonable.
Wow, I totally didn't spot the second possible meaning there!
Definitely not! At least I assume he is talking about any aggressive support of ideas for reasons other than them being ideas based in reality.
Here we go with another hilarious thread of badly-timed edits!
"Definitely not" to which?
Well, I personally don't go for 'voluptuous' specifically, although I've been attracted to (and followed up sexual relations with) those who are voluptuous and been more than satisfied. The snuggling is far superior! But no, I was referring to the Vlad, thing!