= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Call for Anonymous Narratives by LW Women and Question Proposals (AMA) - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (364)
I could pause before attaching labels, but I don't think arbitrary guys who I don't enjoy interactions with ought to get particularly much attention in the form of "digging"; that doesn't make sense to me.
In the context of Epiphany's post, these aren't arbitrary guys:
If you read it in context, that means:
"the ones who do seem compatible have problems like the above"
You can be dysfunctional and incompatible, which is a fail. Or you can be functional and incompatible, also a fail. Or you can be compatible and dysfunctional, still a fail.
The only thing that's not a definite fail is compatible + functional.
I don't think I would enjoy a prolonged period of having to manage someone's desperation on the expectation that there is an otherwise functional guy under all of it. Plenty of guys come functional out of the package, so the opportunity cost of a lot of dysfunction-fussing-with is high. But your advice could be good for people who like fixer-uppers; it's probably safer and more productive than trying to tame a sociopath or something.
Well, this conversation has managed to go right around in a circle:
Also, turning "dig a little deeper" into "a prolonged period" seems uncharitable.
Well, yes. I do in fact have many more romantic prospects than a bunch of the guys I know. Should I act like that is false?
Prolonged beyond what is enjoyable, or required for me to achieve a comfortable level of confidence that it's not going to become enjoyable soon.