Am I a unique snowflake when it comes to relationships?
January 9, 2011 11:52 PM Subscribe
Help me "improve" my relationships with women. 27/M
I've had very little luck with the ladies for the past two years, but my situation was unusual even before that. I put "improve" in quotation marks because I don't have a clear sense in which I'd like to have them improve -- which is part of the problem.
What might be most useful to me is indications of "yes, that sounds familiar / common" or "that bullet sounds strange / uncommon / explains everything". I think I already have a set of concrete steps I intend to take to work myself out of this rut (although advice is welcome). I find MeFi most enlightening when I read and discover that lots of people are like (well, usually unlike) me.
We'll start with a biggie:
* Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality (which, for better or worse seems legitimate from my own observation) are hard for me to deal with. It doesn't help that I'm a mathematician. My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it (as all my guy friends seem to have done, and from conversations, it's not merely that it's endearing to them -- it was hard work to overcome).
* My longest relationship only a few months long, and quite casual (with a friend / coworker who is still a close friend). I don't think I intend to get married. Many of my past romantic interests have developed out of very close friendships (of which I've had many). Since I tend to value the same qualities in (female) friends as in romantic interests, feelings often develop, and sometimes they were mutual (but none recently).
* I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived. I don't date often, but more than once I've been told that the date was immensely refreshing because I was very open and genuine, so I don't think it's because I'm awkward. It's more that entering a relationship with another human being with the explicit hope of feelings developing seems backwards to me.
* My first handholding-kiss-sex-girlfriend was within a month of joining college. Two months later, she cheated on me and dumped me. I have no ill feelings toward her (in fact, after the immediate shock wore off, I was mostly only unhappy with myself. I am largely incapable of / uninterested in grudges / bitterness / resentment).
* I'm very much not an overtly sexual guy. If a girl at the club tries to grind on me without first introducing herself, I find it creepy. I find no pleasure in getting frisky with strangers. I've offended more than one girl by not being willing / able to sleep with them (although this is by no means frequent, and I still very much seem to need validation). With a girl I genuinely like, I think I'm more "normal" sex-wise.
* The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks. I'm very successful in my career.
* I was something of a whiz kid, and fear I may be holding out for a genius saint (I'm far from a saint myself, but have tried to make compassion and uncompromising honesty cornerstones of my life).
To summarize: I very much enjoy female companionship (emotional and sexual), although maybe only when it suits me. The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with.
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?" Should I try something new (like NOT getting wasted at the club every weekend with unclear intentions)? Have I even given a complete enough picture to make any observations from?
I've had very little luck with the ladies for the past two years, but my situation was unusual even before that. I put "improve" in quotation marks because I don't have a clear sense in which I'd like to have them improve -- which is part of the problem.
What might be most useful to me is indications of "yes, that sounds familiar / common" or "that bullet sounds strange / uncommon / explains everything". I think I already have a set of concrete steps I intend to take to work myself out of this rut (although advice is welcome). I find MeFi most enlightening when I read and discover that lots of people are like (well, usually unlike) me.
We'll start with a biggie:
* Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality (which, for better or worse seems legitimate from my own observation) are hard for me to deal with. It doesn't help that I'm a mathematician. My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it (as all my guy friends seem to have done, and from conversations, it's not merely that it's endearing to them -- it was hard work to overcome).
* My longest relationship only a few months long, and quite casual (with a friend / coworker who is still a close friend). I don't think I intend to get married. Many of my past romantic interests have developed out of very close friendships (of which I've had many). Since I tend to value the same qualities in (female) friends as in romantic interests, feelings often develop, and sometimes they were mutual (but none recently).
* I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived. I don't date often, but more than once I've been told that the date was immensely refreshing because I was very open and genuine, so I don't think it's because I'm awkward. It's more that entering a relationship with another human being with the explicit hope of feelings developing seems backwards to me.
* My first handholding-kiss-sex-girlfriend was within a month of joining college. Two months later, she cheated on me and dumped me. I have no ill feelings toward her (in fact, after the immediate shock wore off, I was mostly only unhappy with myself. I am largely incapable of / uninterested in grudges / bitterness / resentment).
* I'm very much not an overtly sexual guy. If a girl at the club tries to grind on me without first introducing herself, I find it creepy. I find no pleasure in getting frisky with strangers. I've offended more than one girl by not being willing / able to sleep with them (although this is by no means frequent, and I still very much seem to need validation). With a girl I genuinely like, I think I'm more "normal" sex-wise.
* The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks. I'm very successful in my career.
* I was something of a whiz kid, and fear I may be holding out for a genius saint (I'm far from a saint myself, but have tried to make compassion and uncompromising honesty cornerstones of my life).
To summarize: I very much enjoy female companionship (emotional and sexual), although maybe only when it suits me. The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with.
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?" Should I try something new (like NOT getting wasted at the club every weekend with unclear intentions)? Have I even given a complete enough picture to make any observations from?
Help me "improve" my relationships with women
Step one is to stop saying stuff like this:
Step one is to stop saying stuff like this:
Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationalityand this:
my own behavior (and that of my guy friends) is more firmly rooted in reasonposted by dersins at 12:09 AM on January 10, 2011 [64 favorites]
I hope my first bullet doesn't come across as misogynistic or sexist. I fully realize that not all women are super emotional, and that men can be too, etc. But in my experience, my own behavior (and that of my guy friends) is more firmly rooted in reason.
It does come across that way, and your follow up point on it doesn't help matters. As a rational person, you might want to think a bit more about how much of this attitude is anecdata, confirmation bias, etc.
The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks.
This rather rubs me the wrong way as well. You do not necessarily deserve to date supermodels. Sorry. The thing you should work on improving is really, truly seeing women as fellow people.
posted by naoko at 12:10 AM on January 10, 2011 [65 favorites]
It does come across that way, and your follow up point on it doesn't help matters. As a rational person, you might want to think a bit more about how much of this attitude is anecdata, confirmation bias, etc.
The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks.
This rather rubs me the wrong way as well. You do not necessarily deserve to date supermodels. Sorry. The thing you should work on improving is really, truly seeing women as fellow people.
posted by naoko at 12:10 AM on January 10, 2011 [65 favorites]
I may be holding out for a genius saint
Don't, they're all taken. But to answer you seriously --
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?"
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you're not unhappy now, then I think you need to have a look at your question again.
Am I a unique snowflake when it comes to relationships? Nope.
Help me "improve" my relationships with women. Stop thinking about them as 'women'.
I mean, the sense I'm getting from your description here is that you put this massive wall between you and women to begin with. They are these Other alien creatures who have specific feminine traits that other men attempt to overcome, but you've got no drive to. You say that from your own observation, it's legitimate that ladies be irrational. Irrationality is very much a label put on by an outside observer. It was you finding whatever their case was irrational, man. If you're having difficulty with all women you know being irrational, or even a high magnitude being irrational, perhaps you need to return to another point you made:
(I) have tried to make compassion and uncompromising honesty cornerstones of my life. Have some compassion. What was their problem and why did you not want to engage with it/view it as irrational? Improve your general relationships with people. "Feelings often develop" -- do you have any long-lasting friendships where things DON'T go this way with women? See, I just think that it's necessary to have meaningful, rich friendships with both genders where romance and sex are as off the table as possible, because then the barrier comes down as to what you have to do or change to somehow make things Work with this nonunderstandable Other.
The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with. If you're friends with them, those 'feminine traits' are going to be part of your daily life (and in any case are generally just people traits, for serious). I think things will become easier and clearer if you dump your idea of what a feminine trait is and what a masculine trait is. These ideas are generally sort of crap. If you want to try something new, I think start from the beginning and strive towards awesome, meaningful friendships with women you respect, and maybe examine your own feelings a bit: what's an 'emotional outburst' to you? Why do you walk away from it? Utilize the compassion that you want to uphold in other walks of life.
You are pinholing people into Men (who think one way) and Women (who think another). Shit will not succeed this way. I can guarantee you that. Don't worry about things you think you need or a girlfriend or 'normality', focus on breaking down those barriers. People are people.
posted by monster truck weekend at 12:13 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
Don't, they're all taken. But to answer you seriously --
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?"
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you're not unhappy now, then I think you need to have a look at your question again.
Am I a unique snowflake when it comes to relationships? Nope.
Help me "improve" my relationships with women. Stop thinking about them as 'women'.
I mean, the sense I'm getting from your description here is that you put this massive wall between you and women to begin with. They are these Other alien creatures who have specific feminine traits that other men attempt to overcome, but you've got no drive to. You say that from your own observation, it's legitimate that ladies be irrational. Irrationality is very much a label put on by an outside observer. It was you finding whatever their case was irrational, man. If you're having difficulty with all women you know being irrational, or even a high magnitude being irrational, perhaps you need to return to another point you made:
(I) have tried to make compassion and uncompromising honesty cornerstones of my life. Have some compassion. What was their problem and why did you not want to engage with it/view it as irrational? Improve your general relationships with people. "Feelings often develop" -- do you have any long-lasting friendships where things DON'T go this way with women? See, I just think that it's necessary to have meaningful, rich friendships with both genders where romance and sex are as off the table as possible, because then the barrier comes down as to what you have to do or change to somehow make things Work with this nonunderstandable Other.
The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with. If you're friends with them, those 'feminine traits' are going to be part of your daily life (and in any case are generally just people traits, for serious). I think things will become easier and clearer if you dump your idea of what a feminine trait is and what a masculine trait is. These ideas are generally sort of crap. If you want to try something new, I think start from the beginning and strive towards awesome, meaningful friendships with women you respect, and maybe examine your own feelings a bit: what's an 'emotional outburst' to you? Why do you walk away from it? Utilize the compassion that you want to uphold in other walks of life.
You are pinholing people into Men (who think one way) and Women (who think another). Shit will not succeed this way. I can guarantee you that. Don't worry about things you think you need or a girlfriend or 'normality', focus on breaking down those barriers. People are people.
posted by monster truck weekend at 12:13 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
Hello, Prince Charming. Your chariot is waiting to take you to never-never land.
But, in all seriousness. You will not be able to move on until you accept that even you are being irrational, a quality you hate in relationships. Instead of running away from irrational behavior (grinding on the dance floor, evidence of cheating) you need to embrace that irrationality exists and make making irrationality rational through meaningful communication and action possible. That means: observe your own demons and do away with them. Observe what is stopping you from losing weight. Observe why you are only dreaming about a woman who will make all of your decisions for you and still treat you like God. Observe why you put so much into your career if it is leading to the total lack of a life.
We are like brothers. We can choose to take the path to the light, but we often go back to the easy because easy is more comfortable. Observation takes time. But believing in your self to succeed with practice is the number one thing to do now to be happy.
posted by parmanparman at 12:16 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
But, in all seriousness. You will not be able to move on until you accept that even you are being irrational, a quality you hate in relationships. Instead of running away from irrational behavior (grinding on the dance floor, evidence of cheating) you need to embrace that irrationality exists and make making irrationality rational through meaningful communication and action possible. That means: observe your own demons and do away with them. Observe what is stopping you from losing weight. Observe why you are only dreaming about a woman who will make all of your decisions for you and still treat you like God. Observe why you put so much into your career if it is leading to the total lack of a life.
We are like brothers. We can choose to take the path to the light, but we often go back to the easy because easy is more comfortable. Observation takes time. But believing in your self to succeed with practice is the number one thing to do now to be happy.
posted by parmanparman at 12:16 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
I agree with dersins and naoko.
Also, ummm, I don't really know what you're looking for here or what your question really is. You seem like a fairly normal, if bean-platey and obnoxious, guy.
You don't come off as terribly empathetic (or charming, for that matter). You also don't seem to get what relationships are about - one example would be that, generally, a girlfriend or boyfriend should be someone you actually like, as a person. Someone you enjoy spending time with. A girlfriend is not a brass ring or a notch on a belt; a girlfriend is a human being.
I also get the sense that your problem is not that girls don't want to go out with you, but that you don't want a girlfriend right now? If so, um... OK? There is nothing wrong with being in a place in your life where you're not looking for a relationship. Or even not looking to date around, get laid, whatever. Do what feels comfortable. There's no external benchmark of achievement, here.
posted by Sara C. at 12:19 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
Also, ummm, I don't really know what you're looking for here or what your question really is. You seem like a fairly normal, if bean-platey and obnoxious, guy.
You don't come off as terribly empathetic (or charming, for that matter). You also don't seem to get what relationships are about - one example would be that, generally, a girlfriend or boyfriend should be someone you actually like, as a person. Someone you enjoy spending time with. A girlfriend is not a brass ring or a notch on a belt; a girlfriend is a human being.
I also get the sense that your problem is not that girls don't want to go out with you, but that you don't want a girlfriend right now? If so, um... OK? There is nothing wrong with being in a place in your life where you're not looking for a relationship. Or even not looking to date around, get laid, whatever. Do what feels comfortable. There's no external benchmark of achievement, here.
posted by Sara C. at 12:19 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
Best answer: * irrationality is not a "feminine trait".
*Being emotional about something does not mean a person is being irrational, they may have very valid reasons to feel angry, frustrated or resentful at you. Similarly being emotionally detached does not mean you're reacting rationally to a situation.
*walking away from people is rude. No one likes being yelled at, that is not exclusive to men, but when someone close to you is upset enough with your behavior to have an "emotional outburst" you need to figure out why. Maybe they're crazy or maybe you've done something horrible.
*lots of people don't like classic dating, I've never dated a total stranger in my life and probably never will. Knowing each other as friends first is a perfectly valid and normal way to meet compatible romantic partners. Certainly better odds than going to clubs.
*if you never want to get married the majority of women are not going to be interested in you as a romantic partner because most people like to keep life long commitment as an option and many are actively seeking it out.
*looks matter just as much to women as they do to men. That is to say some people care a lot and some people don't. On average people date people of similar attractiveness.
*genius saints don't tend to hang out in clubs getting wasted on a weekend night, you might need to recalibrate your expectations there.
Honestly you come across as really clueless about what you want and how people function. I think that if you stop creating an artificial divide between "female friends" and "girlfriends" you are going to be a lot more successful in having a satisfying relationship.
posted by fshgrl at 12:22 AM on January 10, 2011 [32 favorites]
*Being emotional about something does not mean a person is being irrational, they may have very valid reasons to feel angry, frustrated or resentful at you. Similarly being emotionally detached does not mean you're reacting rationally to a situation.
*walking away from people is rude. No one likes being yelled at, that is not exclusive to men, but when someone close to you is upset enough with your behavior to have an "emotional outburst" you need to figure out why. Maybe they're crazy or maybe you've done something horrible.
*lots of people don't like classic dating, I've never dated a total stranger in my life and probably never will. Knowing each other as friends first is a perfectly valid and normal way to meet compatible romantic partners. Certainly better odds than going to clubs.
*if you never want to get married the majority of women are not going to be interested in you as a romantic partner because most people like to keep life long commitment as an option and many are actively seeking it out.
*looks matter just as much to women as they do to men. That is to say some people care a lot and some people don't. On average people date people of similar attractiveness.
*genius saints don't tend to hang out in clubs getting wasted on a weekend night, you might need to recalibrate your expectations there.
Honestly you come across as really clueless about what you want and how people function. I think that if you stop creating an artificial divide between "female friends" and "girlfriends" you are going to be a lot more successful in having a satisfying relationship.
posted by fshgrl at 12:22 AM on January 10, 2011 [32 favorites]
Best answer: There's no "normal" for this stuff, but given that you're already putting work and thought into it it seems like you already care about meeting girls and that's how having a girlfriend usually starts.
Look, if you're feeling so alienated from whatever you think is "normal" then stop going to "the club." It's where young people of both sexes go to get wasted, grind on strangers, act irrational, and meet other people doing the same. People there aren't behaving how they do in the rest of their lives, but it sounds like you don't get that and it's feeding some weird and fucked up ideas you already have about women.
You sound like a nerd (I don't mean that in a bad way) who thinks he deserves a supermodel looking girl because he's smart and "successful," but then judges women who put a lot of work and stock into stereotypical femininity as weak and irrational. You're probably misjudging those girls you think are irrational anyway, but look, if you want someone as "genius saint" as you think you are, go do your rational genius saint things and talk to the girls you see there - sounds like it already worked for you at least once - don't go to the club and complain that no one there wants to talk about astrophysics.
posted by crabintheocean at 12:26 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
Look, if you're feeling so alienated from whatever you think is "normal" then stop going to "the club." It's where young people of both sexes go to get wasted, grind on strangers, act irrational, and meet other people doing the same. People there aren't behaving how they do in the rest of their lives, but it sounds like you don't get that and it's feeding some weird and fucked up ideas you already have about women.
You sound like a nerd (I don't mean that in a bad way) who thinks he deserves a supermodel looking girl because he's smart and "successful," but then judges women who put a lot of work and stock into stereotypical femininity as weak and irrational. You're probably misjudging those girls you think are irrational anyway, but look, if you want someone as "genius saint" as you think you are, go do your rational genius saint things and talk to the girls you see there - sounds like it already worked for you at least once - don't go to the club and complain that no one there wants to talk about astrophysics.
posted by crabintheocean at 12:26 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your guy friends seem more rational because a) you aren't in an intimate relationship with any of them and people tend to be far more emotional in intimate relationships; and b) you are hearing their version of events, many, many men are more emotional than their female partners and you'd never guess which ones.
Also, many individuals try to justify being unemotional, cold, stonewalling, and just general assholish behavior as them merely acting rational and stating, what they view to be, cold hard facts. This works viciously well in fights where one person is very upset and can't think straight to counter them. Often their logic is utter bs, but they still walk away feeling right.
Emotions are not "feminine traits." They are an integral part of any relationship. You sound wildly detached from yours. You will never have a close, intimate relationship, until you get past your fear and discomfort, and stop running in the other direction every time things get a little too intense for you.
posted by whoaali at 12:27 AM on January 10, 2011 [31 favorites]
Also, many individuals try to justify being unemotional, cold, stonewalling, and just general assholish behavior as them merely acting rational and stating, what they view to be, cold hard facts. This works viciously well in fights where one person is very upset and can't think straight to counter them. Often their logic is utter bs, but they still walk away feeling right.
Emotions are not "feminine traits." They are an integral part of any relationship. You sound wildly detached from yours. You will never have a close, intimate relationship, until you get past your fear and discomfort, and stop running in the other direction every time things get a little too intense for you.
posted by whoaali at 12:27 AM on January 10, 2011 [31 favorites]
Relationships are not math equations. Stop approaching them as if they are things to be solved instead of mysteries to enjoy.
posted by Fuego at 12:28 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Fuego at 12:28 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
Best answer: There are plenty of women who have concerns about how much they are willing to give up in order to have a boyfriend. Women who prefer their own well-rounded lives and enjoy their work, friends, travel and other interests and who are at least as intelligent as you. Women who might not want to get married but would like to have a reasonably attractive boyfriend who is compassionate, honest and intelligent enough and who enjoys female companionship from time to time but doesn't try to take over her life. You might be just what one of those women is looking for.
They are not looking in the clubs for guys who get sloshed every weekend so stop being that guy. Take up interesting activities on the weekend and find one of those women who has interests you can respect. For someone logical, it seems strange you're trawling in the club where strangers are apt to grind against you unbidden. You say you're not looking for that kind of woman anyway so what kind of sense does it make to spend your time there?
No, I don't think you'll have a sudden change of attitude and become an uxorious man. But I do think it is possible. if you look in the right places and occupy yourself with the right kind of activities. that you might just find that genius saint and, because of that particular person, all your reservations about love and marriage could just melt away. I'd hope then that the same thing would happen to her reservations. Good luck.
posted by Anitanola at 12:44 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
They are not looking in the clubs for guys who get sloshed every weekend so stop being that guy. Take up interesting activities on the weekend and find one of those women who has interests you can respect. For someone logical, it seems strange you're trawling in the club where strangers are apt to grind against you unbidden. You say you're not looking for that kind of woman anyway so what kind of sense does it make to spend your time there?
No, I don't think you'll have a sudden change of attitude and become an uxorious man. But I do think it is possible. if you look in the right places and occupy yourself with the right kind of activities. that you might just find that genius saint and, because of that particular person, all your reservations about love and marriage could just melt away. I'd hope then that the same thing would happen to her reservations. Good luck.
posted by Anitanola at 12:44 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
The last two years have not been kind to my looks...
Most people don't change that much physically between the ages of 25 - 27. What changed in the last two years?
Are drugs or alcohol involved? My friend who participated in AA said it not only saved her life, but it helped her face her own underlying anger and fears, and she said that radically changed her approach to dating and intimacy.
posted by ladypants at 12:46 AM on January 10, 2011
Most people don't change that much physically between the ages of 25 - 27. What changed in the last two years?
Are drugs or alcohol involved? My friend who participated in AA said it not only saved her life, but it helped her face her own underlying anger and fears, and she said that radically changed her approach to dating and intimacy.
posted by ladypants at 12:46 AM on January 10, 2011
Best answer: Oy. There isn't coffee yet this morning but your post did quite well at waking one up. The immediate thought is 'you, my friend are an a-hole.' But we know the answer is more nuanced than that. A few thoughts below...
A good friend has a similar problem. He regularly offends people and then cannot understand why they are offended. 'It's irrational, they're acting stupidly'. What we have tried to impress on him is that it doesn't matter whether or not he thinks they 'should' be offended, the reality is that they 'are' offended and thus no one wants to kick it with him.
Dating is often more binary than friendship. The friend conversion is a good safe way to begin dating and learn how to do it. In time, perhaps you'll see that the two become rather mutually exclusive. It's rather hard to be friends with someone one finds sexually attractive, especially if the other party does not reciprocate the feelings. Overall, think of those as training wheels and a sign that you're not yet at a point to where you are comfortable with sexual attraction on it's own basis.
Initially, it probably seems as if you are a very confident, devil may care guy who puts it all on the line. Unfortunately, given that it also seems you have a relatively low amount of self-awareness and depth in this area, I imagine the effects of that are relatively limited in duration. After a short while, that openness effect wears off and you have nothing else to really bring up.
It may not make a lot of sense but people open up slowly for a reason -- mainly to not get hurt. You can progress that by pushing it out early on but then where do you go from there? Classic dating exists for a reason. They don't do it much here in Europe. Maybe you would be happier in a culture where dating is much more streamlined and less bullshitty.
In reality, she cheated on you and it sucks. Welcome to life, get in touch with yourself, get angry, and learn something about both yourself and her.
Imagine if you treated the people in your career the same way. Would you be successful? Probably not. You are frustrated that dating is not as easy as career -- I get that -- but look at how you are acting and treating yourself and women. You are aloof, disconnected, cold, scorekeeping, critical, and all the rest.
You desperately want to be that guy in the club getting ground on but you are terrified to admit that you want that because you my friend have control issues.
But you cannot control women. Lol, as any man in a deep relationship will tell you, the most powerful tool you have is the phrase, "yes, dear".
I would surmise that you are not as cool and collected as you come across. I bet I could drive you to irrationality in about five minutes and make you run away crying (mathematics, meet psychology). There is part of your personality and emotional needs that you have walled off and are applying an incorrect template to. Women are not work. They are not theories. They are not anything other than women.
YES YOU ARE MISSING OUT. But not the way you think. The illness is that you are terrified to being self-expressive, emotional and engaged with your fellow person. The symptom is that you are terrible with women.
The most telling comments for have been the ones directly referenced and the one about going to clubs and getting drunk. So you go to clubs, you get wasted, people touch you and you get disgusted. So you are spending a lot of time numbing yourself so that you can engage with people but when you do engage, they turn you off.
You turn yourself off bro-man. I suggest some David DeAngelo for that ass. Stat.
posted by nickrussell at 12:46 AM on January 10, 2011 [45 favorites]
* Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality (which, for better or worse seems legitimate from my own observation) are hard for me to deal with. It doesn't help that I'm a mathematician. My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it (as all my guy friends seem to have done, and from conversations, it's not merely that it's endearing to them -- it was hard work to overcome).Hello Talisman, the telephone is ringing and there's a healthy dose of empathy on the other line. First of all, stereotypical female traits like irrationality? For every trait that you can provide that you consider 'irrational', there is probably a sociological reason. Rarely are people (men or women) gratuitously irrational, rather there is some purpose served. Rather than try to fight the majority of people in the world on their functioning, you can probably accept that there is something here you're missing (thus perhaps you are the one who is being irrational). Read up a bit on empathy and start cultivating some.
A good friend has a similar problem. He regularly offends people and then cannot understand why they are offended. 'It's irrational, they're acting stupidly'. What we have tried to impress on him is that it doesn't matter whether or not he thinks they 'should' be offended, the reality is that they 'are' offended and thus no one wants to kick it with him.
* My longest relationship only a few months long, and quite casual (with a friend / coworker who is still a close friend). I don't think I intend to get married. Many of my past romantic interests have developed out of very close friendships (of which I've had many). Since I tend to value the same qualities in (female) friends as in romantic interests, feelings often develop, and sometimes they were mutual (but none recently).Yes, yes, this old chestnut. Often times, perhaps it's lower risk to use this strategy as the structure of the friendship wrapped around the dating relationship tends to mean that there is more emotional leverage from the friendship into the dating relationship. Thus it's a more manageable situation.
Dating is often more binary than friendship. The friend conversion is a good safe way to begin dating and learn how to do it. In time, perhaps you'll see that the two become rather mutually exclusive. It's rather hard to be friends with someone one finds sexually attractive, especially if the other party does not reciprocate the feelings. Overall, think of those as training wheels and a sign that you're not yet at a point to where you are comfortable with sexual attraction on it's own basis.
* I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived. I don't date often, but more than once I've been told that the date was immensely refreshing because I was very open and genuine, so I don't think it's because I'm awkward. It's more that entering a relationship with another human being with the explicit hope of feelings developing seems backwards to me.Be careful with this one. I hear you barking loud and clear but there is a significant caveat. Everyone has a game and you're game seems to be the open and genuine game. 'My game is no game!'. Ha ha. It's still a game. You're using the fact that most people are a bit more closed and open in time as the baseline and your own point of differentiation is to open up quickly, thus the 'wow, it's so refreshing to meet someone who is so open.'
Initially, it probably seems as if you are a very confident, devil may care guy who puts it all on the line. Unfortunately, given that it also seems you have a relatively low amount of self-awareness and depth in this area, I imagine the effects of that are relatively limited in duration. After a short while, that openness effect wears off and you have nothing else to really bring up.
It may not make a lot of sense but people open up slowly for a reason -- mainly to not get hurt. You can progress that by pushing it out early on but then where do you go from there? Classic dating exists for a reason. They don't do it much here in Europe. Maybe you would be happier in a culture where dating is much more streamlined and less bullshitty.
* My first handholding-kiss-sex-girlfriend was within a month of joining college. Two months later, she cheated on me and dumped me. I have no ill feelings toward her (in fact, after the immediate shock wore off, I was mostly only unhappy with myself. I am largely incapable of / uninterested in grudges / bitterness / resentment).You are terrified of your emotions and further terrified of being terrified, thus you internalise anger and aim it at yourself. That makes it more controllable because you now say, "She didn't fail me, I failed myself" thus preserving your earlier view that women are irrational and you somehow have it all worked out.
In reality, she cheated on you and it sucks. Welcome to life, get in touch with yourself, get angry, and learn something about both yourself and her.
* I'm very much not an overtly sexual guy. If a girl at the club tries to grind on me without first introducing herself, I find it creepy. I find no pleasure in getting frisky with strangers. I've offended more than one girl by not being willing / able to sleep with them (although this is by no means frequent, and I still very much seem to need validation). With a girl I genuinely like, I think I'm more "normal" sex-wise.Clubs aren't for everyone. Some people love them, some people hate them. Some people like waffles and some people do not. As far as the frisky with strangers thing goes, it's all good man. Sexuality different for everyone. Rather than looking at where you don't like meeting women and where you don't feel comfortable, maybe think about where you do like meeting women.
* The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks. I'm very successful in my career.Yes, if you want the truth (and I'll give it to you because being open and honest in your game), your ego is killing you man. You are holding women to a standard higher than yourself physically and that last little comment about how successful you are shows it. I mean man really? So you are 'very' successful in your career but then absolutely terrible in the women department? If you treated women more like you treated your career, you would probably be more successful with women. Sadly, you are treating women like crap at this point. They're emotional. They're needy. They disgust you with sexual advances. You don't like the dating ritual.
Imagine if you treated the people in your career the same way. Would you be successful? Probably not. You are frustrated that dating is not as easy as career -- I get that -- but look at how you are acting and treating yourself and women. You are aloof, disconnected, cold, scorekeeping, critical, and all the rest.
You desperately want to be that guy in the club getting ground on but you are terrified to admit that you want that because you my friend have control issues.
* I was something of a whiz kid, and fear I may be holding out for a genius saint (I'm far from a saint myself, but have tried to make compassion and uncompromising honesty cornerstones of my life).Check it out dog. Whiz kid eh? So your power was informational and rationality. That is how you have managed to function and climb up in the world. It works great for a career and absolutely crap when it comes to interpersonal relationships. You love math and probably code and stacks and sockets and the world in which you can use information for power and control.
But you cannot control women. Lol, as any man in a deep relationship will tell you, the most powerful tool you have is the phrase, "yes, dear".
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?" Should I try something new (like NOT getting wasted at the club every weekend with unclear intentions)? Have I even given a complete enough picture to make any observations from?You should stop being such an a-hole and stop being so hard on women. How do you do this? Stop being so hard on yourself bro. You are shut down in life, expecting to master the world of human relationships the same way you have mastered the world of information and concepts and theories.
I would surmise that you are not as cool and collected as you come across. I bet I could drive you to irrationality in about five minutes and make you run away crying (mathematics, meet psychology). There is part of your personality and emotional needs that you have walled off and are applying an incorrect template to. Women are not work. They are not theories. They are not anything other than women.
YES YOU ARE MISSING OUT. But not the way you think. The illness is that you are terrified to being self-expressive, emotional and engaged with your fellow person. The symptom is that you are terrible with women.
The most telling comments for have been the ones directly referenced and the one about going to clubs and getting drunk. So you go to clubs, you get wasted, people touch you and you get disgusted. So you are spending a lot of time numbing yourself so that you can engage with people but when you do engage, they turn you off.
You turn yourself off bro-man. I suggest some David DeAngelo for that ass. Stat.
posted by nickrussell at 12:46 AM on January 10, 2011 [45 favorites]
Please clarify what you mean when you say you haven't had much luck with women in the past two years. Your post is a little all over the place.
Do you mean that you've known women in whom you've been interested, but those women haven't been interested in you? Or that you're having trouble finding women you'd like to date? Or that you've dated women and found it hasn't worked out, and aren't sure how to fix that? All of the above?
posted by Ashley801 at 12:47 AM on January 10, 2011
Do you mean that you've known women in whom you've been interested, but those women haven't been interested in you? Or that you're having trouble finding women you'd like to date? Or that you've dated women and found it hasn't worked out, and aren't sure how to fix that? All of the above?
posted by Ashley801 at 12:47 AM on January 10, 2011
I don't see anything in your post about what you like about women, or whether you do.
If you don't like 'em, that'll come through. Don't waste someone else's time, or yours.
If you don't have a "feel a burning to have a girlfriend", then don't. More to the point, wait until you have a burning desire to be with a specific woman. Until then, don't.
posted by meadowlark lime at 12:49 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you don't like 'em, that'll come through. Don't waste someone else's time, or yours.
If you don't have a "feel a burning to have a girlfriend", then don't. More to the point, wait until you have a burning desire to be with a specific woman. Until then, don't.
posted by meadowlark lime at 12:49 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
But you cannot control women. Lol, as any man in a relationship he apparently doesn't respect because he's got to rely on fobbing his partner off and not actually listening, the most powerful tool you have is the phrase, "yes, dear".
fixed that for you, dude
I know you're just being flip but this makes me want to die a little. I am the first to admit that sometimes when listening you have to dump being solution-based and say a "you know, that really sucks" rather than a "you should do XYZ," but I think anyone who gets told a mindless "yes, dear" gains the right to piss into your fridge.
posted by monster truck weekend at 12:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [20 favorites]
fixed that for you, dude
I know you're just being flip but this makes me want to die a little. I am the first to admit that sometimes when listening you have to dump being solution-based and say a "you know, that really sucks" rather than a "you should do XYZ," but I think anyone who gets told a mindless "yes, dear" gains the right to piss into your fridge.
posted by monster truck weekend at 12:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [20 favorites]
Your post oozes with thinly veiled contempt for women and your feelings of superiority. Even when trying to dig yourself out of a hole, you dig yourself in further in your addendum. Your post lacks any sense of humility really and that's the biggest turn off. For example, you put being successful in your job in the same bullet point as noting your demands for high end looks in your partner. A girlfriend isn't some robotic trophy attesting to your 'success' - she doesn't have to function for your ego.
Faulty anecdata: Heaps of guys faux moan about their womens craaaaazy ideas. Women do that about their duh! stone age man. It's schtick. It's not fact. I think part of the rite of passage in having your first few relationships is how much you feel you need to faux moan about those darnedest things.
A guy who walks off as a response to emotional outbursts is as clueless as anyone who's accused of irrationality. It's contemptuous.
posted by honey-barbara at 12:57 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
Faulty anecdata: Heaps of guys faux moan about their womens craaaaazy ideas. Women do that about their duh! stone age man. It's schtick. It's not fact. I think part of the rite of passage in having your first few relationships is how much you feel you need to faux moan about those darnedest things.
A guy who walks off as a response to emotional outbursts is as clueless as anyone who's accused of irrationality. It's contemptuous.
posted by honey-barbara at 12:57 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
You aren't seeing women as people and you don't really have a very strong desire to date them, right? So don't.
posted by NoraReed at 12:58 AM on January 10, 2011
posted by NoraReed at 12:58 AM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: You do not necessarily deserve to date supermodels.
True. It probably didn't come across in my post, but I don't consider myself deserving of any of what I've described. I do wish I weren't so concerned with looks, and I'd do well to read a recent MeFi thread about overcoming this.
(Would you like me to write a mathematical proof of why you're an asshole from the statements you've made? I did manage to get an A in my analytical calculus course, despite having a vagina.)
I do have (incredibly smart) female friends with higher degrees in mathematical disciplines. Most seem to agree that men's and women's emotions do originate and manifest differently. I realize I worded it poorly, and after reading the responses so far I'll carefully reconsider how much was wording and how much is bias.
You sound like a nerd
It is not lost on me that I come across as a nerd (I obviously am one), but equally I hope it's clear that I don't necessarily talk like I write.
parmanparman: evidence of cheating
Didn't follow this bit.
Good feedback so far. It is helping.
posted by Talisman at 12:59 AM on January 10, 2011
True. It probably didn't come across in my post, but I don't consider myself deserving of any of what I've described. I do wish I weren't so concerned with looks, and I'd do well to read a recent MeFi thread about overcoming this.
(Would you like me to write a mathematical proof of why you're an asshole from the statements you've made? I did manage to get an A in my analytical calculus course, despite having a vagina.)
I do have (incredibly smart) female friends with higher degrees in mathematical disciplines. Most seem to agree that men's and women's emotions do originate and manifest differently. I realize I worded it poorly, and after reading the responses so far I'll carefully reconsider how much was wording and how much is bias.
You sound like a nerd
It is not lost on me that I come across as a nerd (I obviously am one), but equally I hope it's clear that I don't necessarily talk like I write.
parmanparman: evidence of cheating
Didn't follow this bit.
Good feedback so far. It is helping.
posted by Talisman at 12:59 AM on January 10, 2011
I hope my first bullet doesn't come across as misogynistic or sexist. I fully realize that not all women are super emotional, and that men can be too, etc. But in my experience, my own behavior (and that of my guy friends) is more firmly rooted in reason, and that's easier for me to handle.
It comes across as misogynistic and sexist because it is misogynistic and sexist. So is the "in my experience" walkback that doesn't really walk anything back. I promise you that familiarizing yourself with and taking seriously feminist critiques of this view of gender will be one of the best things you do for yourself.
posted by Marty Marx at 1:05 AM on January 10, 2011 [15 favorites]
It comes across as misogynistic and sexist because it is misogynistic and sexist. So is the "in my experience" walkback that doesn't really walk anything back. I promise you that familiarizing yourself with and taking seriously feminist critiques of this view of gender will be one of the best things you do for yourself.
posted by Marty Marx at 1:05 AM on January 10, 2011 [15 favorites]
Okay, I looked at your other answer and saw that you have struggled with alcohol. It's a hell of a battle, and you deserve a lot of credit for acknowledging your struggle and facing it head on.
If you can bring that same strength to face the emotional pain you've been burying, then you'll be on the path to self-knowledge and self-acceptance. Take good care of yourself first and foremost. This might involve seeking professional help or counseling. Let your wounds heal, and in time your intentions will become clearer, and relationships will become easier.
posted by ladypants at 1:16 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you can bring that same strength to face the emotional pain you've been burying, then you'll be on the path to self-knowledge and self-acceptance. Take good care of yourself first and foremost. This might involve seeking professional help or counseling. Let your wounds heal, and in time your intentions will become clearer, and relationships will become easier.
posted by ladypants at 1:16 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality [...] are hard for me to deal with.
Irrationality is not a female characteristic. It is a human characteristic. It's actually extremely common among most of the population. So is angry, flailing emotionalism—just look at the unhelpful, bitter responses you've received so far in this thread. That's the part of the pool I'm guessing you'd like to try and avoid. I think your default response of walking (or running) away from uncomfortable confrontation easily avoids the ugliness. But this could be part of the problem. People don't want to be with robots. They want to be with other people. Part of that is displaying normal human emotions. You need to get dirty occasionally. Someone calls you an asshole? Tell them to go fuck themselves in the ass with their fathers dick and stop shitting in your thread. You may be a mathematician but you're still human.
I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived.
Classic dating is awkward and contrived. Both parties' intentions are brutally transparent to themselves and yet also simultaneously uselessly opaque to the other.
If a girl at the club tries to grind on me without first introducing herself, I find it creepy.
No, no, it's only creepy when it's a guy doing it to a woman and the woman doesn't like the guy and the guy didn't pick that up with his ESP.
The last two years have not been kind to my looks [...] I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks.
I'm sorry to tell you that's not going to work out very well. Either you need to recognize your own human frailty in potential mates and lower your standards, or you need to hit the gym every day for the next couple of years. See also: having and eating cake.
I'm very successful in my career.
Well, that can be good and that can be bad. If you're successful because you work all the time that probably means not a lot of time for other people/friends/romance. Which is bad.
Also, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you really can't be pulling out the "success" card as a trump for your deteriorating looks. Your looks and your career success are two separate threads. Intermingle those threads to your supreme detriment.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:17 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
Irrationality is not a female characteristic. It is a human characteristic. It's actually extremely common among most of the population. So is angry, flailing emotionalism—just look at the unhelpful, bitter responses you've received so far in this thread. That's the part of the pool I'm guessing you'd like to try and avoid. I think your default response of walking (or running) away from uncomfortable confrontation easily avoids the ugliness. But this could be part of the problem. People don't want to be with robots. They want to be with other people. Part of that is displaying normal human emotions. You need to get dirty occasionally. Someone calls you an asshole? Tell them to go fuck themselves in the ass with their fathers dick and stop shitting in your thread. You may be a mathematician but you're still human.
I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived.
Classic dating is awkward and contrived. Both parties' intentions are brutally transparent to themselves and yet also simultaneously uselessly opaque to the other.
If a girl at the club tries to grind on me without first introducing herself, I find it creepy.
No, no, it's only creepy when it's a guy doing it to a woman and the woman doesn't like the guy and the guy didn't pick that up with his ESP.
The last two years have not been kind to my looks [...] I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks.
I'm sorry to tell you that's not going to work out very well. Either you need to recognize your own human frailty in potential mates and lower your standards, or you need to hit the gym every day for the next couple of years. See also: having and eating cake.
I'm very successful in my career.
Well, that can be good and that can be bad. If you're successful because you work all the time that probably means not a lot of time for other people/friends/romance. Which is bad.
Also, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you really can't be pulling out the "success" card as a trump for your deteriorating looks. Your looks and your career success are two separate threads. Intermingle those threads to your supreme detriment.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:17 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
None of what you said sounds that strange to me, but then again I'm a 27 year old mathematician with very little romantic success/interest, so take that with a grain of salt, I suppose.
I'm not going to enter into specifics, as most people seem to be dissecting every little thing you said, but if you are actually unhappy with your situation, then it's time to make a change, whether that be working out, or examining your levels of empathy and interpersonal skills, or just dropping your standards a bit. That said, you don't really sound like you're unhappy with not having someone around, so I don't know that I'd worry about changing anything. Your beautiful genius saint will probably never show up, but that's not the end of the world.
posted by TypographicalError at 1:25 AM on January 10, 2011
I'm not going to enter into specifics, as most people seem to be dissecting every little thing you said, but if you are actually unhappy with your situation, then it's time to make a change, whether that be working out, or examining your levels of empathy and interpersonal skills, or just dropping your standards a bit. That said, you don't really sound like you're unhappy with not having someone around, so I don't know that I'd worry about changing anything. Your beautiful genius saint will probably never show up, but that's not the end of the world.
posted by TypographicalError at 1:25 AM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: Wow, so much great stuff in here. You guys (and gals) are awesome.
Read up a bit on empathy and start cultivating some.
You wouldn't believe how much of this I've done if I told you. I hope it's not just book learning. I don't fault anyone -- men or women -- for their emotional outbursts or behavior. When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based. I'm really not claiming that anyone else's emotional behavior is invalid.
Someone calls you an asshole? Tell them to go fuck themselves in the ass with their fathers dick and stop shitting in your thread. You may be a mathematician but you're still human.
Good example. I don't fault Green Eyed Monster for her response. It was helpful in its own way, but you're also right that that's "the part of the pool I'd like to try and avoid."
posted by Talisman at 1:34 AM on January 10, 2011
Read up a bit on empathy and start cultivating some.
You wouldn't believe how much of this I've done if I told you. I hope it's not just book learning. I don't fault anyone -- men or women -- for their emotional outbursts or behavior. When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based. I'm really not claiming that anyone else's emotional behavior is invalid.
Someone calls you an asshole? Tell them to go fuck themselves in the ass with their fathers dick and stop shitting in your thread. You may be a mathematician but you're still human.
Good example. I don't fault Green Eyed Monster for her response. It was helpful in its own way, but you're also right that that's "the part of the pool I'd like to try and avoid."
posted by Talisman at 1:34 AM on January 10, 2011
You think women are irrational flighty creatures from a different planet, and you only want to date hot women. There's your problems. Men and women have more in common than in different. Everybody wants to date someone their attracted to, but a lot more than looks can be attractive; you need to broaden your horizons man.
Also - this may be a suprise or not to you - but rationality, "uncompromising honesty", and arguing are not good in relationships, sexual or otherwise. Cultivate some feelings. Feel them. In a relationship, being right counts for nothing, literally nothing. Being compassionate, human, forgiving, impulsive, fun, thought-provoking: these are things that count. Honesty does so, sometimes, but never in aid of being right.
Frankly, if I was a girl and I read some of your attitudes here, or copped a tone that emerges from your question - however well-intentioned - of mathematicians being superior by dint of logic, intelligence, etc. I would run like a million miles.
Indeed, getting a little Freud here, it makes me wonder if you aren't a bit scared to date someone you consider your equal in intelligence or logic, or any other way for that matter. If you're aren't scared by displays of emotion because of the incipient expectation that you too, will need to display emotion, and some of those emotions might be negative ones; self-doubt, fear, uncertainty, vulnerability. And I don't mean talking about them - I'm sure you can do that very well - I mean experiencing them, feeling them. Letting them pass through you like a breeze or a river, existing without comment.
Vulnerability is scary in relationships as elsewhere in life, but you cannot have a true relationship - a valuable one - without it. You need to open yourself to being hurt, to feeling things, to being wrong - or to being right and shutting the fuck up about it because it's still wrong in the relationship.
At the moment, it reads like the things you are valuing - logic, good looks etc - are not actually giving you any value. And they are blocking you from the things you really want and will value: security, trust, respect, affection, fun, trivia, and love.
That's my take anyway.
posted by smoke at 1:36 AM on January 10, 2011 [13 favorites]
Also - this may be a suprise or not to you - but rationality, "uncompromising honesty", and arguing are not good in relationships, sexual or otherwise. Cultivate some feelings. Feel them. In a relationship, being right counts for nothing, literally nothing. Being compassionate, human, forgiving, impulsive, fun, thought-provoking: these are things that count. Honesty does so, sometimes, but never in aid of being right.
Frankly, if I was a girl and I read some of your attitudes here, or copped a tone that emerges from your question - however well-intentioned - of mathematicians being superior by dint of logic, intelligence, etc. I would run like a million miles.
Indeed, getting a little Freud here, it makes me wonder if you aren't a bit scared to date someone you consider your equal in intelligence or logic, or any other way for that matter. If you're aren't scared by displays of emotion because of the incipient expectation that you too, will need to display emotion, and some of those emotions might be negative ones; self-doubt, fear, uncertainty, vulnerability. And I don't mean talking about them - I'm sure you can do that very well - I mean experiencing them, feeling them. Letting them pass through you like a breeze or a river, existing without comment.
Vulnerability is scary in relationships as elsewhere in life, but you cannot have a true relationship - a valuable one - without it. You need to open yourself to being hurt, to feeling things, to being wrong - or to being right and shutting the fuck up about it because it's still wrong in the relationship.
At the moment, it reads like the things you are valuing - logic, good looks etc - are not actually giving you any value. And they are blocking you from the things you really want and will value: security, trust, respect, affection, fun, trivia, and love.
That's my take anyway.
posted by smoke at 1:36 AM on January 10, 2011 [13 favorites]
Response by poster: Most people don't change that much physically between the ages of 25 - 27. What changed in the last two years?
Since it has been asked more than once: balding and skin problems. Docs don't know what's up yet, but possibly vitamin D issues. Luckily I'm not fat, yet.
Also, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you really can't be pulling out the "success" card as a trump for your deteriorating looks.
I'm glad more than one person has caught on that I slipped the "success" bit in with the "looks" bullet. I may have missed that myself. It's not that I'm doing one to compensate for the other (I don't work long hours), but I guess I have harbored hope that the career success offsets the looks bit. In any case, it sounds like looks aren't my biggest barrier.
I don't see anything in your post about what you like about women, or whether you do.
Ridiculous as it sounds, I actually hadn't considered this. Other than the obvious physical connection, I'll have to figure out what it is I'm looking for...
posted by Talisman at 1:43 AM on January 10, 2011
Since it has been asked more than once: balding and skin problems. Docs don't know what's up yet, but possibly vitamin D issues. Luckily I'm not fat, yet.
Also, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you really can't be pulling out the "success" card as a trump for your deteriorating looks.
I'm glad more than one person has caught on that I slipped the "success" bit in with the "looks" bullet. I may have missed that myself. It's not that I'm doing one to compensate for the other (I don't work long hours), but I guess I have harbored hope that the career success offsets the looks bit. In any case, it sounds like looks aren't my biggest barrier.
I don't see anything in your post about what you like about women, or whether you do.
Ridiculous as it sounds, I actually hadn't considered this. Other than the obvious physical connection, I'll have to figure out what it is I'm looking for...
posted by Talisman at 1:43 AM on January 10, 2011
* My first handholding-kiss-sex-girlfriend was within a month of joining college. Two months later, she cheated on me and dumped me. I have no ill feelings toward her (in fact, after the immediate shock wore off, I was mostly only unhappy with myself. I am largely incapable of / uninterested in grudges / bitterness / resentment).
If you were unfazed by the experience, why even bother mentioning it? Being cheated on sucks. Most people would find that incredibly painful, and there's nothing wrong with feeling that pain. It sounds like in your efforts to stay "rational", you've compressed your pain and stored it away as tiny packets of anger and resentment that flare up when a woman shows emotion. Unpack that shit. It's not doing you any good.
posted by ladypants at 1:47 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
If you were unfazed by the experience, why even bother mentioning it? Being cheated on sucks. Most people would find that incredibly painful, and there's nothing wrong with feeling that pain. It sounds like in your efforts to stay "rational", you've compressed your pain and stored it away as tiny packets of anger and resentment that flare up when a woman shows emotion. Unpack that shit. It's not doing you any good.
posted by ladypants at 1:47 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
Women do not care if you are bald.
Of course, if you are balding you should make sure to manage your hair loss well. You now face a much bigger challenge in grooming and the maintenance of your appearance. You need to have a strategy for what to do about your hair. Ideally that strategy should be simple, honest, and un-self-conscious. I recommend either shaving your remaining hair or wearing it very short and close to your head (no comb-overs or ponytails or any of that).
Overall, though, as long as you're well-groomed, women are not really going to care if you are bald.
posted by Sara C. at 1:52 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
Of course, if you are balding you should make sure to manage your hair loss well. You now face a much bigger challenge in grooming and the maintenance of your appearance. You need to have a strategy for what to do about your hair. Ideally that strategy should be simple, honest, and un-self-conscious. I recommend either shaving your remaining hair or wearing it very short and close to your head (no comb-overs or ponytails or any of that).
Overall, though, as long as you're well-groomed, women are not really going to care if you are bald.
posted by Sara C. at 1:52 AM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based.
I don't know you personally, but I know many people who consider themselves to be rational and logical. (Several of them, in fact, are professional mathematicians or computer scientists.)
All of them are manifestly, significantly irrational to others - in ways that they, themselves, are blind to. That is because people are irrational. The human brain is not a computer - it is a messy meat machine that is forced, by its own inherent limitations, to rely upon biases and heuristics that betray accuracy for the sake of efficiency and speed. This applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else. I mean, I don't know you personally, of course, but this thread is full of people pointing out your own mistakes, blind spots, and errors to you - and yet you still maintain that you are too "logic-based." (Which is, of course, its own form of irrationality - you are holding on to your self-image, even in the face of clear contrary evidence.) In addition to the gender studies literature other MeFites have recommended, you might want to read the psychological literature on cognitive biases and heuristics.
Anyway, I'm belaboring this because I think it's important to let go of that aspect of your self-image. It prevents you from respecting and engaging with other people's feelings, which keeps you from forming meaningful relationships.
posted by mellifluous at 1:54 AM on January 10, 2011 [26 favorites]
I don't know you personally, but I know many people who consider themselves to be rational and logical. (Several of them, in fact, are professional mathematicians or computer scientists.)
All of them are manifestly, significantly irrational to others - in ways that they, themselves, are blind to. That is because people are irrational. The human brain is not a computer - it is a messy meat machine that is forced, by its own inherent limitations, to rely upon biases and heuristics that betray accuracy for the sake of efficiency and speed. This applies to you as much as it applies to anyone else. I mean, I don't know you personally, of course, but this thread is full of people pointing out your own mistakes, blind spots, and errors to you - and yet you still maintain that you are too "logic-based." (Which is, of course, its own form of irrationality - you are holding on to your self-image, even in the face of clear contrary evidence.) In addition to the gender studies literature other MeFites have recommended, you might want to read the psychological literature on cognitive biases and heuristics.
Anyway, I'm belaboring this because I think it's important to let go of that aspect of your self-image. It prevents you from respecting and engaging with other people's feelings, which keeps you from forming meaningful relationships.
posted by mellifluous at 1:54 AM on January 10, 2011 [26 favorites]
But in my experience, my own behavior (and that of my guy friends) is more firmly rooted in reason
No, it isn't. In your perception, your own behaviour and that of your guy friends is more firmly rooted in reason. That's not the same thing.
Firstly: You can see your own thought processes (and be told about those of your guy friends). You can't see the thought processes of the women you, or they, are arguing with. Everyone's a paragon of rationality inside their own head. But rather than work from the assumption that these women had thought processes of their own which seemed as valid to them as yours to you, and trying to find out what those were, you're starting from the assumption that these women, by virtue of being women, were irrational and ruled by emotion.
Secondly: You have irrational, unexamined thoughts of your own. (You're human. Everyone does.) Being willing to revisit and question your own views when they're challenged will serve you much, much better than being unwilling to do so. Consider this, for example:
The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks. I'm very successful in my career.
What's the information about your career doing in there? Why is that at all relevant to how attractive you are to women, or which women you're attracted to? You clearly think it is relevant, and that career success is part of the equation when women are evaluating you; further, you think it's objectively and obviously linked to the issue of attractiveness, such that it doesn't need any qualification here ("I'm very successful in my career, which my last two girlfriends told me was what attracted them to me", for example). But for many, many people (including the majority of women I know), career success is not a significant factor when it comes to selecting a partner, nor is it interchangeable with physical looks. You're operating with assumptions that are applicable to the world of 23-year-old models dating octogenarian oil tycoons, not to the world - and the women - around you.
When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based. I'm really not claiming that anyone else's emotional behavior is invalid.
You're assuming that being logical and being emotional are two different, and mutually exclusive, approaches to a situation. But few romantic interactions are free of emotion, and most disagreements involve two people being equally sure that their own logical thought process is fine. If someone is crying during an argument with you, that doesn't mean that they're being emotional, and therefore they're not being logical, and therefore your choice is either to walk away or 'overcome it'. It just means that they care deeply about the issue at hand. They might also be being irrational about the issue at hand, but their tears don't make it so, any more than your own (perceived) lack of emotional response makes you logical by inference.
You describe plenty of emotional responses here - you feel uncomfortable when strange women grind against you in clubs, you dislike being faced with upset emotional responses in a partner, you blamed yourself rather than your former partner when you were cheated on, you like getting validation. There's nothing wrong with any of those (with the possible exception of blaming yourself for someone else's cheating), but you seem compelled to take the stance that they're not emotional responses, they're just a consequence of how logical you are. If you stopped viewing emotions as the antithesis of logic, and allowed yourself to acknowledge and experience your own and the way that they fit into your thought processes, you'd be happier all round.
posted by Catseye at 1:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
No, it isn't. In your perception, your own behaviour and that of your guy friends is more firmly rooted in reason. That's not the same thing.
Firstly: You can see your own thought processes (and be told about those of your guy friends). You can't see the thought processes of the women you, or they, are arguing with. Everyone's a paragon of rationality inside their own head. But rather than work from the assumption that these women had thought processes of their own which seemed as valid to them as yours to you, and trying to find out what those were, you're starting from the assumption that these women, by virtue of being women, were irrational and ruled by emotion.
Secondly: You have irrational, unexamined thoughts of your own. (You're human. Everyone does.) Being willing to revisit and question your own views when they're challenged will serve you much, much better than being unwilling to do so. Consider this, for example:
The last two years have not been kind to my looks -- a serious blow to my ego -- but supposedly I'm still far from unattractive (and besides, I don't think I understand how much looks matter to women). I'm (unfortunately) also very selective when it comes to girls' looks. I'm very successful in my career.
What's the information about your career doing in there? Why is that at all relevant to how attractive you are to women, or which women you're attracted to? You clearly think it is relevant, and that career success is part of the equation when women are evaluating you; further, you think it's objectively and obviously linked to the issue of attractiveness, such that it doesn't need any qualification here ("I'm very successful in my career, which my last two girlfriends told me was what attracted them to me", for example). But for many, many people (including the majority of women I know), career success is not a significant factor when it comes to selecting a partner, nor is it interchangeable with physical looks. You're operating with assumptions that are applicable to the world of 23-year-old models dating octogenarian oil tycoons, not to the world - and the women - around you.
When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based. I'm really not claiming that anyone else's emotional behavior is invalid.
You're assuming that being logical and being emotional are two different, and mutually exclusive, approaches to a situation. But few romantic interactions are free of emotion, and most disagreements involve two people being equally sure that their own logical thought process is fine. If someone is crying during an argument with you, that doesn't mean that they're being emotional, and therefore they're not being logical, and therefore your choice is either to walk away or 'overcome it'. It just means that they care deeply about the issue at hand. They might also be being irrational about the issue at hand, but their tears don't make it so, any more than your own (perceived) lack of emotional response makes you logical by inference.
You describe plenty of emotional responses here - you feel uncomfortable when strange women grind against you in clubs, you dislike being faced with upset emotional responses in a partner, you blamed yourself rather than your former partner when you were cheated on, you like getting validation. There's nothing wrong with any of those (with the possible exception of blaming yourself for someone else's cheating), but you seem compelled to take the stance that they're not emotional responses, they're just a consequence of how logical you are. If you stopped viewing emotions as the antithesis of logic, and allowed yourself to acknowledge and experience your own and the way that they fit into your thought processes, you'd be happier all round.
posted by Catseye at 1:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
Emotions are not irrational; emotions are solid reality. Think of a person feeling angry... they're angry. That's a fact. Whether that person knows it or not. They can think about why they're angry and how to better handle the situation, now and next time ("every time I talk to Bob about politics, I end up so angry, maybe I should stop doing that"). Or they can... be angry but not fully know it, get drunk, end up in a fight, repeat their mistakes, turn their anger inward, and/or whatever. It would be much more productive -- and rational -- to say "hey, I'm feeling angry, what's going on here?"
Rationality, to me, requires having enough emotional awareness to understand what's going on in a given situation and how it is impacting oneself and others emotionally, and then skillfully work inside that context to make things better for everyone. Stupid things happen every day because people ignore basic facts of human nature and the people they're dealing with. Bringing sub-surface currents into one's awareness allows a person to be much more realistic about how events will actually unfold and the best courses of action to take. (Ignoring those sub-surface currents leads, among other things, to emotional outbursts.)
Rationality and emotions are not mutually exclusive. A person can say, very rationally, "hey, when you did X, it made me think Y, and those thoughts made me feel Z. (I felt so Z!) I'm sorry if my Z attitude was off-putting. I think I've realized the XYZ connection. But it's clear to me that I have a fast-track from Behavior X to Feeling Z, and if you were able to quit doing X, it would make life easier on me, too." Somehow, I think you might not have patience or interest for that conversation; maybe I'm wrong. It sounds like you run away from emotions, not from irrationality. If rationality were your highest goal, your post would not be so all over the map.
If you had a friendly relationship with emotions, then these irrational behaviors would be interesting, not hostility-provoking. Why would they do that? What's going on inside? For instance, with you, I'm very curious about what's behind this disdain and contempt. You don't want to be sexist, yet you are, what's behind that mismatch? This strawmanning of women and their emotional outbursts, interesting. I'm curious about how you treat yourself and your own emotions. I'm curious what your home life was like growing up. If I had to guess -- anyone emotional in a volatile and hurtful way?
One step toward handling your discomfort with emotions more rationally in the future might be, if someone's emotional and you're feeling uncomfortable, to try saying, "I apologize, but I get really uncomfortable around emotions. Nothing personal, but I'd like to take a quick breather, so I can better try to understand what you're saying."
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?"
No, probably not, unless something really hard happens in your life, like a parent's death, and you'll suddenly appreciate the people who don't turn away from you in your despair. But if you want to go on the way you are, it's common enough and totally an option. There are a lot of people who are out of touch with their emotions and protect themselves through disdain and stereotyping. There are people all along the spectrum, from very unaware, to very aware of themselves and others, and there are people trying to move from one end to another by doing a lot of work.
posted by salvia at 1:59 AM on January 10, 2011 [6 favorites]
Rationality, to me, requires having enough emotional awareness to understand what's going on in a given situation and how it is impacting oneself and others emotionally, and then skillfully work inside that context to make things better for everyone. Stupid things happen every day because people ignore basic facts of human nature and the people they're dealing with. Bringing sub-surface currents into one's awareness allows a person to be much more realistic about how events will actually unfold and the best courses of action to take. (Ignoring those sub-surface currents leads, among other things, to emotional outbursts.)
Rationality and emotions are not mutually exclusive. A person can say, very rationally, "hey, when you did X, it made me think Y, and those thoughts made me feel Z. (I felt so Z!) I'm sorry if my Z attitude was off-putting. I think I've realized the XYZ connection. But it's clear to me that I have a fast-track from Behavior X to Feeling Z, and if you were able to quit doing X, it would make life easier on me, too." Somehow, I think you might not have patience or interest for that conversation; maybe I'm wrong. It sounds like you run away from emotions, not from irrationality. If rationality were your highest goal, your post would not be so all over the map.
If you had a friendly relationship with emotions, then these irrational behaviors would be interesting, not hostility-provoking. Why would they do that? What's going on inside? For instance, with you, I'm very curious about what's behind this disdain and contempt. You don't want to be sexist, yet you are, what's behind that mismatch? This strawmanning of women and their emotional outbursts, interesting. I'm curious about how you treat yourself and your own emotions. I'm curious what your home life was like growing up. If I had to guess -- anyone emotional in a volatile and hurtful way?
One step toward handling your discomfort with emotions more rationally in the future might be, if someone's emotional and you're feeling uncomfortable, to try saying, "I apologize, but I get really uncomfortable around emotions. Nothing personal, but I'd like to take a quick breather, so I can better try to understand what you're saying."
Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?"
No, probably not, unless something really hard happens in your life, like a parent's death, and you'll suddenly appreciate the people who don't turn away from you in your despair. But if you want to go on the way you are, it's common enough and totally an option. There are a lot of people who are out of touch with their emotions and protect themselves through disdain and stereotyping. There are people all along the spectrum, from very unaware, to very aware of themselves and others, and there are people trying to move from one end to another by doing a lot of work.
posted by salvia at 1:59 AM on January 10, 2011 [6 favorites]
Talisman, for what it's worth, I really respect your determination here for something that is really difficult. You've got a lot of privilege to unpack when it comes to women, but I respect the class of your responses.
what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based
Keep in mind though that this is only your logic, and everyone has a different source of emotional logic -- you have your perspective, but it's always worthwhile to dig deep and see theirs.
Agreeing with mellifluous entirely that this is a part of your self-image that will impede forming meaningful relationships. It's also something that may, in the long run, make you happier and less prone to getting the hell out of Dodge at emotional shit you find aversive.
posted by monster truck weekend at 2:00 AM on January 10, 2011
what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based
Keep in mind though that this is only your logic, and everyone has a different source of emotional logic -- you have your perspective, but it's always worthwhile to dig deep and see theirs.
Agreeing with mellifluous entirely that this is a part of your self-image that will impede forming meaningful relationships. It's also something that may, in the long run, make you happier and less prone to getting the hell out of Dodge at emotional shit you find aversive.
posted by monster truck weekend at 2:00 AM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: Do you mean that you've known women in whom you've been interested, but those women haven't been interested in you? Or that you're having trouble finding women you'd like to date? Or that you've dated women and found it hasn't worked out, and aren't sure how to fix that? All of the above?
I've had a handful of dates, and never gave the women a chance (nor perhaps they, me). One friend expressed interest via a friend, and I immediately dismissed the idea because in my mind she was too "irrational" (hrm...); another, because I simply wasn't attracted to her (appearance or... oh, crap... robotic-ness? really?). To be clear: both have Ph.D.s -- from Brand Name Schools -- and in no way did I consider them "intellectually inferior."
Okay, wow, I'm an a-hole. I guess I've always known that but excuse it since I'm actually nice to people. I pride myself on giving to charity and being forgiving to a fault and a million other things, but in a meaningful way I'm still an a-hole. I can work on that.
A common suggestion so far is that I learn to feel visceral emotions more strongly. I can be fairly confident that I simply don't have them as strongly -- I spent time in a monastery watching pretty damn closely -- but I think nickrussell is onto something with directing them back at myself. I am pretty effing hard on myself (even if it doesn't sound like it), and maybe fixing that would be a good start.
posted by Talisman at 2:07 AM on January 10, 2011 [6 favorites]
I've had a handful of dates, and never gave the women a chance (nor perhaps they, me). One friend expressed interest via a friend, and I immediately dismissed the idea because in my mind she was too "irrational" (hrm...); another, because I simply wasn't attracted to her (appearance or... oh, crap... robotic-ness? really?). To be clear: both have Ph.D.s -- from Brand Name Schools -- and in no way did I consider them "intellectually inferior."
Okay, wow, I'm an a-hole. I guess I've always known that but excuse it since I'm actually nice to people. I pride myself on giving to charity and being forgiving to a fault and a million other things, but in a meaningful way I'm still an a-hole. I can work on that.
A common suggestion so far is that I learn to feel visceral emotions more strongly. I can be fairly confident that I simply don't have them as strongly -- I spent time in a monastery watching pretty damn closely -- but I think nickrussell is onto something with directing them back at myself. I am pretty effing hard on myself (even if it doesn't sound like it), and maybe fixing that would be a good start.
posted by Talisman at 2:07 AM on January 10, 2011 [6 favorites]
One thing I realize I left unsaid. If you're a thought- and logic-oriented person, emotions become very good data. They can be the independent variable (if I'm nervous, what do I do?). They can be the dependent variable. (When I argue with Bob, I get angry. How angry am I on a scale of 1 to 10? Is it when we argue about politics, or when we argue about anything? What if we argue on the phone vs. in person?)
Taking some measurements and analyzing them through a few basic principles (e.g., causes of anger include feeling threatened, feeling entitled to something that you don't receive...) helps reveal what's going on internally, allowing you to experimentally troubleshoot the system to maximize your own well-being.
posted by salvia at 2:09 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Taking some measurements and analyzing them through a few basic principles (e.g., causes of anger include feeling threatened, feeling entitled to something that you don't receive...) helps reveal what's going on internally, allowing you to experimentally troubleshoot the system to maximize your own well-being.
posted by salvia at 2:09 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
From your original post and follow-up answers, it sounds like you analyze all this to death from the moment you're thinking of dating someone.
It might be a worthwhile exercise to let go. Go out on a date with someone with whom it's "just" a date, then ask her out for another, without trying to decide whether she's a good partner for you, without judging her balance of rationality to emotionality. Just have fun, do things you find that are fun, and enjoy having some company.
I think many people (myself included) get very caught up in trying to figure out if the people they're dating are right for them without ever thinking about whether or not they're having a good time, and so dating and relationships become a real slog.
posted by xingcat at 2:23 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
It might be a worthwhile exercise to let go. Go out on a date with someone with whom it's "just" a date, then ask her out for another, without trying to decide whether she's a good partner for you, without judging her balance of rationality to emotionality. Just have fun, do things you find that are fun, and enjoy having some company.
I think many people (myself included) get very caught up in trying to figure out if the people they're dating are right for them without ever thinking about whether or not they're having a good time, and so dating and relationships become a real slog.
posted by xingcat at 2:23 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
When you're talking about "logic", you are presumably talking about the kind of logic one learns about in computing - predicate calculus, and that kind of thing.
This is the kind of logic that computers are very good at.
If you think for half a second about how brains work, you will notice that they are not binary, they are not computers, and they do not work based on the same kind of logic. When brains do perform predicate calculus, they do it with a teeny tiny recently evolved bit of the brain that is in some sense running "on top of" the non-calculus-based operating system underneath.
I think it's an enormous leap of faith to privilege this shiny new computer-style of logic over a far older system that's been honed over millions of years to keep us alive, and that is optimised to the hardware (wetware?) that we actually have in our heads.
I suggest that you like predicate calculus because it's very simple and you understand it, and you don't like the native output of wetware based logic because it's complex and you don't understand it.
Furthermore, you have missed the salient fact that all your very logical pronouncements are coming out of your fully wetware-based head, and thus are probably only a thin layer of "logic" disguising your brain's underlying wetware based calculations.
Nobody wants to date a computer. For dating purposes, computers are decidedly inferior to people running complex wetware systems. In fact, computers are completely incapable of dating and it seems likely that not one of them has ever gone on a date.
Therefore I suggest getting a bit more in touch with the wetware based operating system and trying to learn a little more about how it works. Yes, it's complicated. That's life.
posted by emilyw at 2:27 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
This is the kind of logic that computers are very good at.
If you think for half a second about how brains work, you will notice that they are not binary, they are not computers, and they do not work based on the same kind of logic. When brains do perform predicate calculus, they do it with a teeny tiny recently evolved bit of the brain that is in some sense running "on top of" the non-calculus-based operating system underneath.
I think it's an enormous leap of faith to privilege this shiny new computer-style of logic over a far older system that's been honed over millions of years to keep us alive, and that is optimised to the hardware (wetware?) that we actually have in our heads.
I suggest that you like predicate calculus because it's very simple and you understand it, and you don't like the native output of wetware based logic because it's complex and you don't understand it.
Furthermore, you have missed the salient fact that all your very logical pronouncements are coming out of your fully wetware-based head, and thus are probably only a thin layer of "logic" disguising your brain's underlying wetware based calculations.
Nobody wants to date a computer. For dating purposes, computers are decidedly inferior to people running complex wetware systems. In fact, computers are completely incapable of dating and it seems likely that not one of them has ever gone on a date.
Therefore I suggest getting a bit more in touch with the wetware based operating system and trying to learn a little more about how it works. Yes, it's complicated. That's life.
posted by emilyw at 2:27 AM on January 10, 2011 [11 favorites]
Response by poster: When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based.
Okay on further reflection -- and I hope this is not my ego trying to dig itself out of a hole -- what I'm really really must be trying to say is that I don't use emotions as inputs to my decisions enough. And maybe I do this because I simply don't understand other people's emotions well enough.
Will this decision cause person X to scream in anger and person Y to cry but give person Z a nice warm meal? Well I don't know much about screaming in anger, so the choice becomes easy. I know how to model such emotions in my head, but I'm not good at feeling them.
I'm aware that some of my behavior may be characteristic of an autism spectrum disorder. Maybe I'd gain something from reading more there.
posted by Talisman at 2:33 AM on January 10, 2011
Okay on further reflection -- and I hope this is not my ego trying to dig itself out of a hole -- what I'm really really must be trying to say is that I don't use emotions as inputs to my decisions enough. And maybe I do this because I simply don't understand other people's emotions well enough.
Will this decision cause person X to scream in anger and person Y to cry but give person Z a nice warm meal? Well I don't know much about screaming in anger, so the choice becomes easy. I know how to model such emotions in my head, but I'm not good at feeling them.
I'm aware that some of my behavior may be characteristic of an autism spectrum disorder. Maybe I'd gain something from reading more there.
posted by Talisman at 2:33 AM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: (And obviously, I only arrived at this most recent epiphany by digesting the responses of many helpful people in this thread.)
This is really helping, y'all.
posted by Talisman at 2:37 AM on January 10, 2011
This is really helping, y'all.
posted by Talisman at 2:37 AM on January 10, 2011
further: You're actually logically incapable of fully understanding why brains do what they do. The part of your brain that you can apply to understanding your brain is by definition smaller than the whole of your brain.
The logic (e.g. predicate calculus) that you see as "rational" is merely the subset of logic that you have the brain capacity to understand. It's the subset of logic that you can handle with some of the 4% of your genome that's different from that of a chimpanzee.
So when you say "people are irrational" you are really saying that you can't follow their logic, which is unsurprising. You don't have the tools to analyse the program. None of us do. In fact it might be a logical impossibility to build a computer that has a full understanding of how it works.
It is incorrect to draw the conclusion that computers are better than brains. It would be more appropriate to draw the conclusion that computers are far stupider than brains.
In conclusion, you may like to read Gödel, Escher, Bach.
posted by emilyw at 2:52 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
The logic (e.g. predicate calculus) that you see as "rational" is merely the subset of logic that you have the brain capacity to understand. It's the subset of logic that you can handle with some of the 4% of your genome that's different from that of a chimpanzee.
So when you say "people are irrational" you are really saying that you can't follow their logic, which is unsurprising. You don't have the tools to analyse the program. None of us do. In fact it might be a logical impossibility to build a computer that has a full understanding of how it works.
It is incorrect to draw the conclusion that computers are better than brains. It would be more appropriate to draw the conclusion that computers are far stupider than brains.
In conclusion, you may like to read Gödel, Escher, Bach.
posted by emilyw at 2:52 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality
consider that behaviour you don't understand is going to appear irrational until you take the time to comprehend it instead of walking away. Rather than condemn a person who is showing emotion as being irrational, realize that the failing may be on your side, that you're not getting what they are trying to communicate to you.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 2:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
consider that behaviour you don't understand is going to appear irrational until you take the time to comprehend it instead of walking away. Rather than condemn a person who is showing emotion as being irrational, realize that the failing may be on your side, that you're not getting what they are trying to communicate to you.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 2:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: Okay, it's slowly coming into focus.
I don't get angry? Yeah, right. When my approaches at the club don't go well -- yep, I get home and I'm angry. At myself.
When a girl I'm into treats me like sh*t, and I feel really hurt? Blame myself, naturally. Because I'm terrified of confronting her about me feeling pain. Because who am I to feel pain? I even obsess over whether or not it's "reasonable" for me to feel hurt by another person's behavior. Yeah, not good.
My dad recently commented on feeling alienated by my not sharing my joy at my recent promotion. Thing is, I don't know how to externally express joy. I don't scream at sports events or concerts. I find that behavior silly (condescending? who, me?).
Some of these I know how to work on, others (the joy bit) I don't. Maybe I'd do well to consider specific scenarios where my emotional response is out of whack, and try to understand how I can "improve" on them, if that's even possible. Who knows, maybe I'll even accept more invites to sports events and try screaming a bit.
posted by Talisman at 3:03 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
I don't get angry? Yeah, right. When my approaches at the club don't go well -- yep, I get home and I'm angry. At myself.
When a girl I'm into treats me like sh*t, and I feel really hurt? Blame myself, naturally. Because I'm terrified of confronting her about me feeling pain. Because who am I to feel pain? I even obsess over whether or not it's "reasonable" for me to feel hurt by another person's behavior. Yeah, not good.
My dad recently commented on feeling alienated by my not sharing my joy at my recent promotion. Thing is, I don't know how to externally express joy. I don't scream at sports events or concerts. I find that behavior silly (condescending? who, me?).
Some of these I know how to work on, others (the joy bit) I don't. Maybe I'd do well to consider specific scenarios where my emotional response is out of whack, and try to understand how I can "improve" on them, if that's even possible. Who knows, maybe I'll even accept more invites to sports events and try screaming a bit.
posted by Talisman at 3:03 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
Can I just say, that I* started reading this thread getting the "Christ, what an obnoxious asshole" vibe described by many commenters, but after reading your latest follow-up comments I'm really starting to feel sympathetic toward you and your problems. It seems like you're taking the advice to heart and are determined to work on improving your attitude/approach on relationships and women - which is a great first step. I also think a therapist would be great for helping you with this process to get some outside perspective. Good luck!
A girl, if it matters to you.
posted by coraline at 3:53 AM on January 10, 2011 [23 favorites]
A girl, if it matters to you.
posted by coraline at 3:53 AM on January 10, 2011 [23 favorites]
You stated you don't know why you need women at all, apart from their physicality.
Have you considered simply seeing a call girl until you sort all this stuff out? It seems to me you might not be suited for a traditional relationship right now nor want one, if ever. This seems possibly the more efficient, more honorable, and less muddled way of getting what you need.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 4:08 AM on January 10, 2011
Have you considered simply seeing a call girl until you sort all this stuff out? It seems to me you might not be suited for a traditional relationship right now nor want one, if ever. This seems possibly the more efficient, more honorable, and less muddled way of getting what you need.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 4:08 AM on January 10, 2011
I even obsess over whether or not it's "reasonable" for me to feel hurt by another person's behavior.
My goodness. Is there any possibility that you may occasionally do something irrational? Don't worry. Somewhere out there is a nice Aspie engineer girl who will put up with your bizarre and irrational behaviour. (To be clear, I don't think it's unreasonable in anyway to feel hurt by people treating you badly. I think it's unhealthy to try and hide the hurt totally from yourself. Venturing way too far into cheap psychology, maybe you're trying to avoid reacting like an individual you know who reacts melodramatically to any apparent emotional minor injury - "What do you mean you forgot to buy milk?! You don't love me!! I'll die alone and the cats will eat me!!1!" - because yeah, inflicting that kind of stuff on anyone around you is overkill. But there is a middle ground.)
posted by Lebannen at 4:11 AM on January 10, 2011
My goodness. Is there any possibility that you may occasionally do something irrational? Don't worry. Somewhere out there is a nice Aspie engineer girl who will put up with your bizarre and irrational behaviour. (To be clear, I don't think it's unreasonable in anyway to feel hurt by people treating you badly. I think it's unhealthy to try and hide the hurt totally from yourself. Venturing way too far into cheap psychology, maybe you're trying to avoid reacting like an individual you know who reacts melodramatically to any apparent emotional minor injury - "What do you mean you forgot to buy milk?! You don't love me!! I'll die alone and the cats will eat me!!1!" - because yeah, inflicting that kind of stuff on anyone around you is overkill. But there is a middle ground.)
posted by Lebannen at 4:11 AM on January 10, 2011
It sounds like you've become rather set in your ways of living. Maybe you should put yourself in a new situation where you're not knowledgable but a rookie and where you get to goof around and try out being a different person.
I'm thinking of maybe a new physical hobby where you join a group (like rock climbing). Something where you learn how to act when you are the one who knows less than everyone else, and where you learn to have fun despite having no control.
Personally, I find (generally competent) men who can laugh at their own goofiness to be extremely attractive. From the way you talk there is not a lot of fun in your life or in your self assessment!
posted by Omnomnom at 4:44 AM on January 10, 2011
I'm thinking of maybe a new physical hobby where you join a group (like rock climbing). Something where you learn how to act when you are the one who knows less than everyone else, and where you learn to have fun despite having no control.
Personally, I find (generally competent) men who can laugh at their own goofiness to be extremely attractive. From the way you talk there is not a lot of fun in your life or in your self assessment!
posted by Omnomnom at 4:44 AM on January 10, 2011
"I don't use emotions as inputs to my decisions enough. And maybe I do this because I simply don't understand other people's emotions well enough. "
I was/still am a lot like that. Might be worthwhile to take the trouble to start reading people. Mostly because those emotions and emotional reactions people have and use to make judgements? They work a hell of a lot of the time! I had once felt proud of myself for trying to live by Crocker's rules until I realised why most "normal" people (to whom I used to feel mighty superior) don't: when people are rude to you, they're giving you important information about how they feel about you and that information is crucial to have!
Looking back, I have had many many such experiences because of my inability (or refusal) to give the same importance to my emotions as others do to theirs. My soon-to-be-ex-husband used to constantly accuse me of infidelity with no basis whatsoever. And I used to think I was being mature by trying to talk logically through it without blowing up with righteous anger. The result? He concluded I must be really guilty, because someone falsely accused would react very differently from what I did.
So when you refuse to factor in emotions into your analysis, you miss picking up on clues that other people give and you give them very confusing signals. It's like the rest of the world uses a certain protocol for communication, and you notice the few minor flaws in it, think you can do better and redesign your own, but it makes it worse because you're the only one using this brand new and supposedly better protocol.
Anyway, onto another question you had asked initially: "Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?""
Check out this thread, see if it's something you'd like to have and something you'll regret missing out on..
posted by roshni at 4:45 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I was/still am a lot like that. Might be worthwhile to take the trouble to start reading people. Mostly because those emotions and emotional reactions people have and use to make judgements? They work a hell of a lot of the time! I had once felt proud of myself for trying to live by Crocker's rules until I realised why most "normal" people (to whom I used to feel mighty superior) don't: when people are rude to you, they're giving you important information about how they feel about you and that information is crucial to have!
Looking back, I have had many many such experiences because of my inability (or refusal) to give the same importance to my emotions as others do to theirs. My soon-to-be-ex-husband used to constantly accuse me of infidelity with no basis whatsoever. And I used to think I was being mature by trying to talk logically through it without blowing up with righteous anger. The result? He concluded I must be really guilty, because someone falsely accused would react very differently from what I did.
So when you refuse to factor in emotions into your analysis, you miss picking up on clues that other people give and you give them very confusing signals. It's like the rest of the world uses a certain protocol for communication, and you notice the few minor flaws in it, think you can do better and redesign your own, but it makes it worse because you're the only one using this brand new and supposedly better protocol.
Anyway, onto another question you had asked initially: "Will I suddenly one day realize that I've been missing out, feel a burning to have a girlfriend, and become more "normal?""
Check out this thread, see if it's something you'd like to have and something you'll regret missing out on..
posted by roshni at 4:45 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think you aren't nearly rational or above emotion as you'd like to think. Your post and replies all read like well-constructed justifications of the situation rather than honest descriptions.
If I had to guess, I'd say you haven't had much luck with women because you are deeply angry at them and they pick up on that shit and run for the hills.
You're angry at the power they hold over you that you can't control. I think you're angry that you are "irrationally" attracted to super models or women in general. You're angry that your success hasn't offset your looks. At the base, I think you're angry at them because you think the fact they don't like you is "irrational."
posted by milarepa at 4:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
If I had to guess, I'd say you haven't had much luck with women because you are deeply angry at them and they pick up on that shit and run for the hills.
You're angry at the power they hold over you that you can't control. I think you're angry that you are "irrationally" attracted to super models or women in general. You're angry that your success hasn't offset your looks. At the base, I think you're angry at them because you think the fact they don't like you is "irrational."
posted by milarepa at 4:55 AM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
I do have (incredibly smart) female friends with higher degrees in mathematical disciplines. Most seem to agree that men's and women's emotions do originate and manifest differently. I realize I worded it poorly, and after reading the responses so far I'll carefully reconsider how much was wording and how much is bias.Well, men and women have different goals. It isn't particularly rational for jealous men to get pissed if their girlfriends talk to other guys, but it happens. I think the "irrationality" thing is caused by the fact that everyone thinks that they are being rational whenever they get into a disagreement. Since the person you're most likely to disagree with is your SO it will naturally seem like the opposite sex is more likely to be irrational. But that would be example of the selection bias.
What's the information about your career doing in there? Why is that at all relevant to how attractive you are to women, or which women you're attracted to?Seriously? I remember once in a large lecture psych class the professor asked the guys whether they would prefer dating a beautiful woman or one a decent one with a good job, and almost all the guys picked the good looking one. When she asked the girls, they all picked the one with the job. Something like 100-150 women, only one or two girls picked the better looking guy over the guy with the good job.
posted by delmoi at 5:12 AM on January 10, 2011
Cheers. I was thinking a bit about a reading list for you because upon reflection, your problem is primarily with human interaction (as mentioned by the comment about your father re: promotion).
Heres a few titles:
1) The Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work by John Gottman. This is a phenomenal book that illustrates what positive and negative long-term human relationships are like. The advice even spills over into positive family relationships and human actions in general. The reason I recommend it for you is that there are easy exercises that will help you understand what empathy and authentic connections are based on.
2) Hostage At The Table by George Kohlreiser. You are extremely hard on yourself and there is a reason why. An experience or series of experiences. Kohlreiser talks about interpersonal attachment styles and there's a few categories of underdeveloped attachment style and how to redevelop attachment styles. There's also stories about stand-offs which keep it interesting. This is a great book for personal and business development.
3) How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Very accessible how to manual of how we can interact with people and the benefits that come from leading with our heart and not our minds.
Futher, there's something called a Family Constellation exercise (google it for one in your area) that a coach and mentor of mine uses to help people find their subconscious blockers. At some point, you made the active decision to distance yourself from other people and hold them at arm's length. The control issue and self-guilt and blame are a reaction to that development. We need to know why things fail and in a vacuum of relating with other people, if we turn the lens on ourselves, we can make the rational justifications and find answers, but the emotional cost and resulting isolation is debilitating.
Good luck mate. I think you will find that if you become a better man to yourself, the women will follow, for our relationships are primarily a reflection of how we are in our own lives.
posted by nickrussell at 5:26 AM on January 10, 2011 [12 favorites]
Heres a few titles:
1) The Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work by John Gottman. This is a phenomenal book that illustrates what positive and negative long-term human relationships are like. The advice even spills over into positive family relationships and human actions in general. The reason I recommend it for you is that there are easy exercises that will help you understand what empathy and authentic connections are based on.
2) Hostage At The Table by George Kohlreiser. You are extremely hard on yourself and there is a reason why. An experience or series of experiences. Kohlreiser talks about interpersonal attachment styles and there's a few categories of underdeveloped attachment style and how to redevelop attachment styles. There's also stories about stand-offs which keep it interesting. This is a great book for personal and business development.
3) How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Very accessible how to manual of how we can interact with people and the benefits that come from leading with our heart and not our minds.
Futher, there's something called a Family Constellation exercise (google it for one in your area) that a coach and mentor of mine uses to help people find their subconscious blockers. At some point, you made the active decision to distance yourself from other people and hold them at arm's length. The control issue and self-guilt and blame are a reaction to that development. We need to know why things fail and in a vacuum of relating with other people, if we turn the lens on ourselves, we can make the rational justifications and find answers, but the emotional cost and resulting isolation is debilitating.
Good luck mate. I think you will find that if you become a better man to yourself, the women will follow, for our relationships are primarily a reflection of how we are in our own lives.
posted by nickrussell at 5:26 AM on January 10, 2011 [12 favorites]
Everyone has quirks. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, a completely rational human specimen does not exist. A component of successful relationships is the ability to learn about your partner's emotional quirks, allow for them provided they aren't harmful to anyone, and love them in spite of or maybe even for them.
You're not at this point yet. Does it make you a bad person? No, but it means you should be focusing on how you relate to human beings in general before you obsess about relating to a girlfriend in particular. You've mentioned several times that you've tried to teach yourself empathy through reading, which is commendable, but this isn't something you can just grind out, unfortunately, especially when you can't see the forest for the trees. A therapist can help you figure out why you're having such trouble relating to others. I can't recommend that route of action highly enough here.
And no, being a mathematician doesn't get you off the hook for this - I know a couple male scientists on the tenure track who deal in concrete formulas and experiments all day long and manage to be kind, relatable, and emotionally open in their social lives. I think you're using your career to excuse an unrelated problem in the way you view other humans, which is part of why you got the reaction you did in the first few posts before you came in and clarified. You're going to keep getting that reaction until you're able to change the underlying issues, which is what a pro can help with.
posted by superfluousm at 5:40 AM on January 10, 2011
You're not at this point yet. Does it make you a bad person? No, but it means you should be focusing on how you relate to human beings in general before you obsess about relating to a girlfriend in particular. You've mentioned several times that you've tried to teach yourself empathy through reading, which is commendable, but this isn't something you can just grind out, unfortunately, especially when you can't see the forest for the trees. A therapist can help you figure out why you're having such trouble relating to others. I can't recommend that route of action highly enough here.
And no, being a mathematician doesn't get you off the hook for this - I know a couple male scientists on the tenure track who deal in concrete formulas and experiments all day long and manage to be kind, relatable, and emotionally open in their social lives. I think you're using your career to excuse an unrelated problem in the way you view other humans, which is part of why you got the reaction you did in the first few posts before you came in and clarified. You're going to keep getting that reaction until you're able to change the underlying issues, which is what a pro can help with.
posted by superfluousm at 5:40 AM on January 10, 2011
Seriously? I remember once in a large lecture psych class the professor asked the guys whether they would prefer dating a beautiful woman or one a decent one with a good job, and almost all the guys picked the good looking one. When she asked the girls, they all picked the one with the job.
I'd suggest that there's a difference between "Given the choice, would you prefer to date this person with this job and these looks, or this person with a worse job and better looks?", and "If you found out Person X had a good job, would you be more likely to date him?" Or undergrad psychology students aren't a good representation of the general population (especially given their age), or those particular undergrad psychology students aren't, or who knows. But yeah, my own anecdata (thinking of all the men and women I know, both attached and unattached) would suggest no positive correlation between male job success (measured in pay or social status) and likelihood of being part of a couple. If anything that's the other way around. (I also don't know any women who consider 'must have a well-paid or prestigious job' to be on their list of qualities they're looking for in a mate, although I don't doubt that there are women out there who do.)
There is a widespread perception, among some circles - largely the kind of circles that instruct men on the best way to pick up women - that women are more attracted to status and power than looks and personality. The OP here would be best placed to avoid such advice, firstly because treating women as a foreign species with one collective set of desires and behaviours hasn't worked for him, and secondly because if you think women are all shallow gold-diggers, then the kind of women who'll be happy to be with you are those who don't mind being thought of as shallow gold-diggers, and the 'genius saint' the OP wants is unlikely to fall into that category.
posted by Catseye at 6:22 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'd suggest that there's a difference between "Given the choice, would you prefer to date this person with this job and these looks, or this person with a worse job and better looks?", and "If you found out Person X had a good job, would you be more likely to date him?" Or undergrad psychology students aren't a good representation of the general population (especially given their age), or those particular undergrad psychology students aren't, or who knows. But yeah, my own anecdata (thinking of all the men and women I know, both attached and unattached) would suggest no positive correlation between male job success (measured in pay or social status) and likelihood of being part of a couple. If anything that's the other way around. (I also don't know any women who consider 'must have a well-paid or prestigious job' to be on their list of qualities they're looking for in a mate, although I don't doubt that there are women out there who do.)
There is a widespread perception, among some circles - largely the kind of circles that instruct men on the best way to pick up women - that women are more attracted to status and power than looks and personality. The OP here would be best placed to avoid such advice, firstly because treating women as a foreign species with one collective set of desires and behaviours hasn't worked for him, and secondly because if you think women are all shallow gold-diggers, then the kind of women who'll be happy to be with you are those who don't mind being thought of as shallow gold-diggers, and the 'genius saint' the OP wants is unlikely to fall into that category.
posted by Catseye at 6:22 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
The best advice in this thread is to just relax. Go on some low stakes dates without thinking about the future at all. Just have fun meeting and flirting with some strange women over food or coffee. Think of it as a workout--dating is the treadmill while relationships are the marathons. Get thee to match.com.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:34 AM on January 10, 2011
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:34 AM on January 10, 2011
I wish I could say this in a way that doesn't seem harsh, but if you really are like you describe yourself, I feel bad for even the girl of your dreams. Men who are attractive are more than "nice guys" or guys who can act like they are nice as a facade. What you've written about yourself in terms of goals and motivations is very unattractive. I would not want to see a female friend, sister, cousin or anybody being targeted by a suitor for those qualities.
I suggest you develop kindness and compassion by spending more time with people of both sexes, volunteering to work with children or senior citizens or animals, and embracing some of those irrational and messy emotions and cultivating them. You seem to stick to your "motto" and preferences out of total fear of feeling out of control. You probably have a ton of "irrational" and "emotional" feelings under there and maybe that is what is stunting you into giving off such a weird and unattractive vibe.
I also think you should go into therapy to talk to a professional about your emotional blockage and also learn how not to be so contemptuous of women.
Also, if you just want sexual satisfaction, you are better off seeking the services of a call girl.
posted by anniecat at 6:42 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I suggest you develop kindness and compassion by spending more time with people of both sexes, volunteering to work with children or senior citizens or animals, and embracing some of those irrational and messy emotions and cultivating them. You seem to stick to your "motto" and preferences out of total fear of feeling out of control. You probably have a ton of "irrational" and "emotional" feelings under there and maybe that is what is stunting you into giving off such a weird and unattractive vibe.
I also think you should go into therapy to talk to a professional about your emotional blockage and also learn how not to be so contemptuous of women.
Also, if you just want sexual satisfaction, you are better off seeking the services of a call girl.
posted by anniecat at 6:42 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
"Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality (which, for better or worse seems legitimate from my own observation) are hard for me to deal with. It doesn't help that I'm a mathematician. My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive"
This made me literally LOL because you recognize walking away isn't productive -- that is, that it's an IRRATIONAL response -- but you don't recognize it as irrational when complaining about irrationality!
The men I know who think of themselves as the most logical, rational people are generally the ones with the most repressed, unexpressed emotions who act those emotions out in sort-of strange (often extremely "irrational"!) ways while refusing to ever acknowledge them. But emotions are for girls, as you say, so they don't have any. What they don't realize is how much time their wives/long-term-girlfriends spend MANAGING them to steer their emotions into constructive pathways, rather than self-destructive or socially suboptimal directions. They allow them to maintain their illusion of super-rationality by quietly directing their irrationality. And they smile affectionately about it. But almost without exception the men I know who think of themselves as the MOST rational, the LEAST emotional, are absolute quivvering balls of emotional energy shooting out in surprising and "irrational" ways (because the emotion pops out in directions that have nothing to do with what CAUSED the emotion). It should jump out at you that these men don't want to deal with emotions, so they a) disdain them in others and b) pretend not to have any themselves (or pretend to deal with them entirely rationally). That sounds a LOT like what you're doing.
It also seems like it's very important to you to be admired -- success in your career, whiz kid, etc. -- which I suspect is why you both don't want a woman who's your intellectual equal (indeed, can't admit women as your intellectual equals -- they're too "irrational") AND want a woman who's super-hot. So SHE will look up to you for being so smart, and others will admire you for dating someone so hot. That's not a girlfriend. That's an accessory. You can rent them by the hour. (If you have enough money you can also engage in a marriage contract of "money for hotness," which is an old and respectable tradition, though not as respectable these days as it used to be.)
With your last response, I think you maybe need therapy to learn how to safely and productively express your emotions. It might help you out of this knot you've tied yourself into.
(Also, certain kinds of men become successful in their careers primarily by being flaming assholes. I don't get this vibe, but -- if your success is predicated on your being a flaming asshole, that makes career success/stability, which is typically attractive to women, totally unattractive. I know this because I hang out with lawyers and the flaming asshole ones are always SO SHOCKED they either can't get dates or their spouse is divorcing them and their kids don't want shared custody.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:43 AM on January 10, 2011 [31 favorites]
This made me literally LOL because you recognize walking away isn't productive -- that is, that it's an IRRATIONAL response -- but you don't recognize it as irrational when complaining about irrationality!
The men I know who think of themselves as the most logical, rational people are generally the ones with the most repressed, unexpressed emotions who act those emotions out in sort-of strange (often extremely "irrational"!) ways while refusing to ever acknowledge them. But emotions are for girls, as you say, so they don't have any. What they don't realize is how much time their wives/long-term-girlfriends spend MANAGING them to steer their emotions into constructive pathways, rather than self-destructive or socially suboptimal directions. They allow them to maintain their illusion of super-rationality by quietly directing their irrationality. And they smile affectionately about it. But almost without exception the men I know who think of themselves as the MOST rational, the LEAST emotional, are absolute quivvering balls of emotional energy shooting out in surprising and "irrational" ways (because the emotion pops out in directions that have nothing to do with what CAUSED the emotion). It should jump out at you that these men don't want to deal with emotions, so they a) disdain them in others and b) pretend not to have any themselves (or pretend to deal with them entirely rationally). That sounds a LOT like what you're doing.
It also seems like it's very important to you to be admired -- success in your career, whiz kid, etc. -- which I suspect is why you both don't want a woman who's your intellectual equal (indeed, can't admit women as your intellectual equals -- they're too "irrational") AND want a woman who's super-hot. So SHE will look up to you for being so smart, and others will admire you for dating someone so hot. That's not a girlfriend. That's an accessory. You can rent them by the hour. (If you have enough money you can also engage in a marriage contract of "money for hotness," which is an old and respectable tradition, though not as respectable these days as it used to be.)
With your last response, I think you maybe need therapy to learn how to safely and productively express your emotions. It might help you out of this knot you've tied yourself into.
(Also, certain kinds of men become successful in their careers primarily by being flaming assholes. I don't get this vibe, but -- if your success is predicated on your being a flaming asshole, that makes career success/stability, which is typically attractive to women, totally unattractive. I know this because I hang out with lawyers and the flaming asshole ones are always SO SHOCKED they either can't get dates or their spouse is divorcing them and their kids don't want shared custody.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:43 AM on January 10, 2011 [31 favorites]
Emotions are not irrational. Ignoring emotions is irrational. Emotions underlie everything. There is no reason to do any work, intellectual or physical, without emotions. There is no reason for mathematics unless you enjoy it or the benefits derived therefrom. Avoidance of pain, loneliness, hunger, or discomfort is not enough to make life worth living.
Once you accept that emotions are the whole point of your existence, it becomes possible to develop an appreciation for the emotional experiences of others.
posted by amtho at 6:51 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
Once you accept that emotions are the whole point of your existence, it becomes possible to develop an appreciation for the emotional experiences of others.
posted by amtho at 6:51 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
You wouldn't believe how much of this I've done if I told you. I hope it's not just book learning. I don't fault anyone -- men or women -- for their emotional outbursts or behavior. When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based.
Just to add to your list of moments when you behave emotionally: when you walk away from someone having an emotional outburst, you are not rationally choosing to disengage with the emotions of others. What you are really doing, whether or not you're letting yourself feel it, is freaking the fuck out and running away.
I used to do something similar. I used to hide my panic/fear/pain by acting like I was super logical. But the first step toward dealing with your fear of other peoples' emotions is admitting that you're scared of them, which is, of course, an emotional outburst. In your last followup, you posted a smart analysis of the times when you have what you call "emotional outbursts." But then you go immediately to this place: "Some of these I know how to work on, others (the joy bit) I don't. Maybe I'd do well to consider specific scenarios where my emotional response is out of whack, and try to understand how I can "improve" on them, if that's even possible. "
Stop imagining that there's some appropriate emotional response to each situation, and measuring other peoples' response, and your own, against that ideal response. You're a science guy, not a literature guy (I'm a literature guy, as will become apparent in a second), but the term for the thing you seem to think exists is "objective correlative." T. S. Eliot came up with it to talk about Hamlet: "a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked." See that? Eliot thinks that there's a specific chain of events that must evoke a specific emotion. His theory has also been roundly discredited by subsequent generations, and probably sounds a little crazy when I explain it here. That's because it is. But it's also, implicitly, the standard that you're using to engage with other people and judge their responses (and your own as well). Stop doing that - when you catch yourself doing it, just identify it as you "looking for the objective correlative," remind yourself that the OC doesn't exists, and then engage with the other person as another person.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:53 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Just to add to your list of moments when you behave emotionally: when you walk away from someone having an emotional outburst, you are not rationally choosing to disengage with the emotions of others. What you are really doing, whether or not you're letting yourself feel it, is freaking the fuck out and running away.
I used to do something similar. I used to hide my panic/fear/pain by acting like I was super logical. But the first step toward dealing with your fear of other peoples' emotions is admitting that you're scared of them, which is, of course, an emotional outburst. In your last followup, you posted a smart analysis of the times when you have what you call "emotional outbursts." But then you go immediately to this place: "Some of these I know how to work on, others (the joy bit) I don't. Maybe I'd do well to consider specific scenarios where my emotional response is out of whack, and try to understand how I can "improve" on them, if that's even possible. "
Stop imagining that there's some appropriate emotional response to each situation, and measuring other peoples' response, and your own, against that ideal response. You're a science guy, not a literature guy (I'm a literature guy, as will become apparent in a second), but the term for the thing you seem to think exists is "objective correlative." T. S. Eliot came up with it to talk about Hamlet: "a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked." See that? Eliot thinks that there's a specific chain of events that must evoke a specific emotion. His theory has also been roundly discredited by subsequent generations, and probably sounds a little crazy when I explain it here. That's because it is. But it's also, implicitly, the standard that you're using to engage with other people and judge their responses (and your own as well). Stop doing that - when you catch yourself doing it, just identify it as you "looking for the objective correlative," remind yourself that the OC doesn't exists, and then engage with the other person as another person.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:53 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Should have previewed - Eyebrows McGee said it better than I did, and without dragging dead modernists into it.
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Ragged Richard at 6:54 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
* I find "classic" dating awkward and contrived. I don't date often, but more than once I've been told that the date was immensely refreshing because I was very open and genuine, so I don't think it's because I'm awkward. It's more that entering a relationship with another human being with the explicit hope of feelings developing seems backwards to me.
Hi. I'm sort of a girl version of you. I agree with this statement completely and I have also taken the friend route to relationships.
I think your issues are twofold: First, the one you share with me, and second, the men-are-this-women-are-this attitude. People are people. That is it. Some men are some way and some women are some way, but some men are other ways and some women are other ways. Women are not an alien species (though approaching relationships through the vile institution of the date often makes it seem as such).
Stop going to "the club." That is not a place to find the kind of girl with whom you're going to have a relationship. Make new friends. If the friend thing has been the only way you have gotten into relationships in the past, why try to alter it? Everyone has their own love story they reinact.
posted by millipede at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Hi. I'm sort of a girl version of you. I agree with this statement completely and I have also taken the friend route to relationships.
I think your issues are twofold: First, the one you share with me, and second, the men-are-this-women-are-this attitude. People are people. That is it. Some men are some way and some women are some way, but some men are other ways and some women are other ways. Women are not an alien species (though approaching relationships through the vile institution of the date often makes it seem as such).
Stop going to "the club." That is not a place to find the kind of girl with whom you're going to have a relationship. Make new friends. If the friend thing has been the only way you have gotten into relationships in the past, why try to alter it? Everyone has their own love story they reinact.
posted by millipede at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
You might try the book Focusing by Eugene Gendlin (or an author name close to that). He provides a step-by-step approach to "ok, what am I feeling? ... Ok, why?" There are also therapists who specialize in helping people tune in to their body, which is a good way for someone to learn to pick up on their emotions. You could also try volunteering for a student (are you still a student?) peer counseling crisis line. You would be trained to listen to others and their emotions, and to respond skillfully. (I wouldn't do that until your disdain for emotionality is replaced by an earnest desire to help people when they're upset.) These three suggestions are all about learning to listen to the emotions of yourself and others. Also, I support the suggestion about play. You might try taking improv, which is all about playing with the emotional dynamics of a situation. You'll likely be really bad (right there with ya! or maybe your straight man persona would be hilarious perhaps), but it'll be educational either way.
posted by salvia at 7:20 AM on January 10, 2011
posted by salvia at 7:20 AM on January 10, 2011
Am I a unique snowflake when it comes to relationships?
I hate to be the one to tell you this (unless someone has already mentioned this above) but you are more average than you realise: A typical 20-something clueless guy who thinks he is a snowflake and women are some exotic species to be understood and deciphered.
Women are people, each unique and different, just like men.
That my friend, is key to healthy relationships, both personal and professional.
posted by xm at 8:03 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I hate to be the one to tell you this (unless someone has already mentioned this above) but you are more average than you realise: A typical 20-something clueless guy who thinks he is a snowflake and women are some exotic species to be understood and deciphered.
Women are people, each unique and different, just like men.
That my friend, is key to healthy relationships, both personal and professional.
posted by xm at 8:03 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I agree with others that you inadvertently gave us a clue as to your real problems through your "irrationality" comment, but I'm not sure it's for the reason people are saying.
The idea that you can't have relationships with women as long as you hold any stereotypes about them is absurd. Most people hold stereotypes about both men and women. This doesn't automatically stop women from being in successful relationships with men (or women), or men from being in successful relationships with women (or men).
To be clear, I'm not approving the "irrationality" stereotype, or any stereotype. But that's a different issue from whether you must dispel all your stereotypes in order to be in a relationship. There are plenty of other good reasons to dispel stereotypes, but I don't think "You have to do this to get a girlfriend" is the main reason.
I also don't think it's that helpful for us to pile on calling you names.
However, the fact that people are calling you names this is something useful for you to see.
Here's why: you wrote that sentence without seeming to think there was anything wrong with it. It made sense to you, so ... you said it. What could be simpler, right?
Of course, it's not so simple. You've seen the reaction people had, and you realized you had to backtrack (which some people found unconvincing, as tends to be the case with backtracking).
You should have first tried to imagine what people's response would be, then had second thoughts about saying it. Some words are just too negative to use in certain contexts whether or not you believe them.
Relationships are largely about using words to repeatedly share feelings. If you use hurtful words, you'll cut off that back-and-forth process.
People are much more tolerant of you applying negative words to yourself than to someone else, and many people are much less tolerant of you applying negative words to women than to men.
In short, your own words in this thread are an illustration of something you have to work on: understanding how to use words in a way that's tactful rather than inflammatory.
posted by John Cohen at 8:15 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
The idea that you can't have relationships with women as long as you hold any stereotypes about them is absurd. Most people hold stereotypes about both men and women. This doesn't automatically stop women from being in successful relationships with men (or women), or men from being in successful relationships with women (or men).
To be clear, I'm not approving the "irrationality" stereotype, or any stereotype. But that's a different issue from whether you must dispel all your stereotypes in order to be in a relationship. There are plenty of other good reasons to dispel stereotypes, but I don't think "You have to do this to get a girlfriend" is the main reason.
I also don't think it's that helpful for us to pile on calling you names.
However, the fact that people are calling you names this is something useful for you to see.
Here's why: you wrote that sentence without seeming to think there was anything wrong with it. It made sense to you, so ... you said it. What could be simpler, right?
Of course, it's not so simple. You've seen the reaction people had, and you realized you had to backtrack (which some people found unconvincing, as tends to be the case with backtracking).
You should have first tried to imagine what people's response would be, then had second thoughts about saying it. Some words are just too negative to use in certain contexts whether or not you believe them.
Relationships are largely about using words to repeatedly share feelings. If you use hurtful words, you'll cut off that back-and-forth process.
People are much more tolerant of you applying negative words to yourself than to someone else, and many people are much less tolerant of you applying negative words to women than to men.
In short, your own words in this thread are an illustration of something you have to work on: understanding how to use words in a way that's tactful rather than inflammatory.
posted by John Cohen at 8:15 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
I too have been really impressed by your most recent responses. I'm not convinced I want to heartily agree with your conclusions, but you're listening and that's wonderful.
What you have not been doing is communicating clearly. Honestly and thoughtfully, yes - and that is, again, fantastic to see - but not clearly.
Others have noted that your initial post was "all over the map". You haven't addressed this, so I wonder if you find the claim somewhat perplexing. It's not that you served up an unfocused, free-association-style essay like so many "human relations" questions do, but rather, that you didn't give us any real help in figuring out what you were talking about. For instance, I had no sense of how many girlfriends you've been with altogether (beyond ≥2, that is), and while that probably isn't in and of itself pertinent information, it would have helped in grounding your story. You probably already understand what I'm saying from how many times you've revised or had to clarify your statements.
Here is one of the more telling examples from later in the thread:
too "irrational" (hrm...); another, because I simply wasn't attracted to her (appearance or... oh, crap... robotic-ness? really?)
You are talking about something you have obviously put a great deal of thought into, but you're expressing it to us without any framing, any sense of where this information is coming from (notes/a journal? recollection? reflection?).
Of course, I am not nitpicking your writing style for its own sake, but rather to say: even the people here (to whom you are actively listening, and sharing more of yourself than, I suspect, you often do), you are holding at arms' distance. You aren't letting them see your thought processes, you're just taking in information and returning conclusions. That's not completely inappropriate for this thread, but if you're doing this with people in your life too, then you're likely coming off as detached, difficult to read, and unwilling to be(come) involved.
Somewhat paradoxically, it's not surprising that your first dates go well, if you share your conclusions like you have been here. Hearing someone seemingly-openly talk about private things, things they "know" to be true of themselves, is rare, and quite refreshing. It creates a sense of trust and honesty, and can be incredibly attractive. But what about after the initial few dates, when it's time to start actually being together? What if the person you're seeing tries to open up about herself, as you have about yourself? Is that when you start pulling away from her irrationality? Do you see how that could be the first step down the path to crying and emotional outbursts?
We're all irrational beasts. Some of your conclusions don't make any sense to me, some of mine won't make any sense to you. But if what I've said rings true, it doesn't mean you're an asshole. It means you were protecting (distancing) yourself in ways that were inconsiderate of others, and that is something you can change.
For example:
not sharing my joy
As one not-terribly-emotional-except-sometimes person to another, here is how you do this, my friend: state facts in an open manner ("I got promoted." [slight smile] "I'm going to be doing X/am now in charge of Y. And it pays way better!"* [bigger smile]), let others become excited, and then you mirror their excitement (talking loudly/quickly, back-slapping, hand-shaking, hugging, making plans for a celebration). Easiest thing in the world, and nobody ever notices. Bam, joy-sharing.
*Note the loose grammar. I can't tell if this is a problem of yours, but being overly rigid/"correct" in speech is off-putting and, to most people out there, you'll come off as not being open even if you're telling your deepest secret. Ask me how I know!
posted by teremala at 8:21 AM on January 10, 2011
What you have not been doing is communicating clearly. Honestly and thoughtfully, yes - and that is, again, fantastic to see - but not clearly.
Others have noted that your initial post was "all over the map". You haven't addressed this, so I wonder if you find the claim somewhat perplexing. It's not that you served up an unfocused, free-association-style essay like so many "human relations" questions do, but rather, that you didn't give us any real help in figuring out what you were talking about. For instance, I had no sense of how many girlfriends you've been with altogether (beyond ≥2, that is), and while that probably isn't in and of itself pertinent information, it would have helped in grounding your story. You probably already understand what I'm saying from how many times you've revised or had to clarify your statements.
Here is one of the more telling examples from later in the thread:
too "irrational" (hrm...); another, because I simply wasn't attracted to her (appearance or... oh, crap... robotic-ness? really?)
You are talking about something you have obviously put a great deal of thought into, but you're expressing it to us without any framing, any sense of where this information is coming from (notes/a journal? recollection? reflection?).
Of course, I am not nitpicking your writing style for its own sake, but rather to say: even the people here (to whom you are actively listening, and sharing more of yourself than, I suspect, you often do), you are holding at arms' distance. You aren't letting them see your thought processes, you're just taking in information and returning conclusions. That's not completely inappropriate for this thread, but if you're doing this with people in your life too, then you're likely coming off as detached, difficult to read, and unwilling to be(come) involved.
Somewhat paradoxically, it's not surprising that your first dates go well, if you share your conclusions like you have been here. Hearing someone seemingly-openly talk about private things, things they "know" to be true of themselves, is rare, and quite refreshing. It creates a sense of trust and honesty, and can be incredibly attractive. But what about after the initial few dates, when it's time to start actually being together? What if the person you're seeing tries to open up about herself, as you have about yourself? Is that when you start pulling away from her irrationality? Do you see how that could be the first step down the path to crying and emotional outbursts?
We're all irrational beasts. Some of your conclusions don't make any sense to me, some of mine won't make any sense to you. But if what I've said rings true, it doesn't mean you're an asshole. It means you were protecting (distancing) yourself in ways that were inconsiderate of others, and that is something you can change.
For example:
not sharing my joy
As one not-terribly-emotional-except-sometimes person to another, here is how you do this, my friend: state facts in an open manner ("I got promoted." [slight smile] "I'm going to be doing X/am now in charge of Y. And it pays way better!"* [bigger smile]), let others become excited, and then you mirror their excitement (talking loudly/quickly, back-slapping, hand-shaking, hugging, making plans for a celebration). Easiest thing in the world, and nobody ever notices. Bam, joy-sharing.
*Note the loose grammar. I can't tell if this is a problem of yours, but being overly rigid/"correct" in speech is off-putting and, to most people out there, you'll come off as not being open even if you're telling your deepest secret. Ask me how I know!
posted by teremala at 8:21 AM on January 10, 2011
I (female) started therapy more than five years ago because I couldn't date. Too messy, emotional, etc. I didn't necessarily Want to date, I told my therapist, I just wanted to be Able to date, should I get to that point. It was skillset I should develop.
My therapist threw that back in my face faster than you can "logical". She argued that I desperately wanted to be partnered, and that I was trying to think myself out of Everything in life. Five years of therapy later I'm still not a big Fan of emotion, but I understand its utility in understanding Humans, myself included. And, yes, I look back and wish I'd worked on being partnered sooner, because it makes me a happier, better person every single day.
posted by ldthomps at 8:34 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
My therapist threw that back in my face faster than you can "logical". She argued that I desperately wanted to be partnered, and that I was trying to think myself out of Everything in life. Five years of therapy later I'm still not a big Fan of emotion, but I understand its utility in understanding Humans, myself included. And, yes, I look back and wish I'd worked on being partnered sooner, because it makes me a happier, better person every single day.
posted by ldthomps at 8:34 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I get the impression you think women are these magical rom-com creatures who scream, shout, withold sex and all want a ring on their finger. They are not. There;'s no reason why the women you date have to be a different species from the ones with which you are friends.
"The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with."
I don't know what this means. You make friends purely to make them into relationships, and you're surprosed it doesn't work? (Women find this very, very creepy, particularly when you stop calling once your moves are rebuffed.) The 'feminine traits' disappear when you get to know women as actual people, rather than pick-up targets in the club?
I'm afraid you do come across as an a-hole, or at least, as someone who does put up a big wall between yourself and women and disguises your problem as their problem by going on about 'feminine traits' this and 'female irrationality' that. That's going to hamper your relations with women far more than your looks, earning or status.
posted by mippy at 8:40 AM on January 10, 2011
"The friendship route hasn't yielded great results, and I suspect I may prefer it partly because it allows me to avoid the "feminine traits" I'm unskilled in working with."
I don't know what this means. You make friends purely to make them into relationships, and you're surprosed it doesn't work? (Women find this very, very creepy, particularly when you stop calling once your moves are rebuffed.) The 'feminine traits' disappear when you get to know women as actual people, rather than pick-up targets in the club?
I'm afraid you do come across as an a-hole, or at least, as someone who does put up a big wall between yourself and women and disguises your problem as their problem by going on about 'feminine traits' this and 'female irrationality' that. That's going to hamper your relations with women far more than your looks, earning or status.
posted by mippy at 8:40 AM on January 10, 2011
And I say this as a very bright and often irrational woman (hello, bipolar disorder!) who has dated a maths professor and is dating someone who enjoys science, logic and games.
posted by mippy at 8:42 AM on January 10, 2011
posted by mippy at 8:42 AM on January 10, 2011
And, seriously? A comment that did nothing but call the guy an asshole got 44 Favorites? For shame.
Here's the thing about this comment, which as I post is at 52 favorites (one of which is mine)—and Talisman's response ("I do have (incredibly smart) female friends with higher degrees in mathematical disciplines. Most seem to agree that men's and women's emotions do originate and manifest differently. I realize I worded it poorly, and after reading the responses so far I'll carefully reconsider how much was wording and how much is bias.").
The fact is, it doesn't really matter exactly what the "facts" are in this case, although I certainly don't agree that women are more irrational by any stretch (if anything, I've see the opposite in my own personality and with other men in my life...). But the point is that a lot about Talisman's post and many subsequent responses comes off as asshole-ish. I am a guy and I was repulsed almost immediately, I can only imagine how some of the women in this thread felt. So, yeah, maybe Green Eyed Monster's response was not constructive in one sense, but it was pretty dead-on—stop being an asshole. If you're getting this response what does it mean? It means, fundamentally, you're not listening to cues. You're not getting it. And honestly, it's not hard to fix on some level: shut up and listen. When people are responding angrily, don't say "actually I have smart female friends," that is perpetuating the asshole-ishness. Say, instead, "actually I don't understand why you are so angry. Can you help me understand?" And then listen. When someone is angry or upset in your person, and they are female, don't assume it has anything to do with their femaleness—imagine that they are, just, you know, human—and ask them something like "what's up? Want to tell me what is up? I promise to listen carefully without judgement," and then do that.
It's actually not much harder than that. Treat people like people and things should flow from there. Forget about all this who is more irrational shit, it's besides the point anyways—why do you care? These ideas are not useful and not necessary to hold onto, really.
posted by dubitable at 8:56 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
Here's the thing about this comment, which as I post is at 52 favorites (one of which is mine)—and Talisman's response ("I do have (incredibly smart) female friends with higher degrees in mathematical disciplines. Most seem to agree that men's and women's emotions do originate and manifest differently. I realize I worded it poorly, and after reading the responses so far I'll carefully reconsider how much was wording and how much is bias.").
The fact is, it doesn't really matter exactly what the "facts" are in this case, although I certainly don't agree that women are more irrational by any stretch (if anything, I've see the opposite in my own personality and with other men in my life...). But the point is that a lot about Talisman's post and many subsequent responses comes off as asshole-ish. I am a guy and I was repulsed almost immediately, I can only imagine how some of the women in this thread felt. So, yeah, maybe Green Eyed Monster's response was not constructive in one sense, but it was pretty dead-on—stop being an asshole. If you're getting this response what does it mean? It means, fundamentally, you're not listening to cues. You're not getting it. And honestly, it's not hard to fix on some level: shut up and listen. When people are responding angrily, don't say "actually I have smart female friends," that is perpetuating the asshole-ishness. Say, instead, "actually I don't understand why you are so angry. Can you help me understand?" And then listen. When someone is angry or upset in your person, and they are female, don't assume it has anything to do with their femaleness—imagine that they are, just, you know, human—and ask them something like "what's up? Want to tell me what is up? I promise to listen carefully without judgement," and then do that.
It's actually not much harder than that. Treat people like people and things should flow from there. Forget about all this who is more irrational shit, it's besides the point anyways—why do you care? These ideas are not useful and not necessary to hold onto, really.
posted by dubitable at 8:56 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
(Disclaimer: I am fully aware that logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive, and that the IQ/EQ construct is problematic and socially constructed, but for the sake of simplicity, I am going to go there.)
As one (person who considers herself) hyperrational to another: do you have any friends who you may have previously and flippantly dismissed as not very smart, not very intellectual, but who could be described as having a "high EQ?" You know, the type of person who is ridiculously good at social networking, making and maintaining friendships, hosting parties that EVERYONE goes to, dissecting the relationship woes of their loved ones, speaking in public, that sort of thing? The type who would (stereotypically, I should note) be described as successful in jobs related to marketing, politics, and public relations?
Yeah. Hang out with them. Observe. Take their perspectives into account.
These people are very smart. And seeing their methods of navigating professional, personal, and public relations can be totally revelatory. And fun.
posted by vivid postcard at 8:57 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
As one (person who considers herself) hyperrational to another: do you have any friends who you may have previously and flippantly dismissed as not very smart, not very intellectual, but who could be described as having a "high EQ?" You know, the type of person who is ridiculously good at social networking, making and maintaining friendships, hosting parties that EVERYONE goes to, dissecting the relationship woes of their loved ones, speaking in public, that sort of thing? The type who would (stereotypically, I should note) be described as successful in jobs related to marketing, politics, and public relations?
Yeah. Hang out with them. Observe. Take their perspectives into account.
These people are very smart. And seeing their methods of navigating professional, personal, and public relations can be totally revelatory. And fun.
posted by vivid postcard at 8:57 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
shut up and listen.
By the way Talisman, I just want to acknowledge that I see you're clearly trying to do that in this thread—otherwise I'm guilty of what I'm criticizing in you! Anyways, keep it up. I know this kind of stuff is really hard (I've had to as well).
posted by dubitable at 8:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
By the way Talisman, I just want to acknowledge that I see you're clearly trying to do that in this thread—otherwise I'm guilty of what I'm criticizing in you! Anyways, keep it up. I know this kind of stuff is really hard (I've had to as well).
posted by dubitable at 8:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
When I say I don't know how to deal, what I'm really saying is that my decisions are too logic-based.
I was going to call you out on this, but you actually did a pretty good job in one of your later comments at seeing the inherent illogic in your own statement. A logical response to not knowing how to deal would be saying "I don't know how to deal. Can you help me figure out how to deal? I wonder what I need to learn to help me figure out how to deal." An illogical response is "I don't know how to do this. I quit."
I wish I could find a link online to a tool the counselors at my old school use. It was a list of words describing emotions by category to help people figure out exactly what they were feeling. So, for example, if you said "I don't like that behavior. It's so illogical," and someone asked you to say a little bit more about what emotions come up for you in that situation, you could look at the list to help name your emotions. "Well, I think maybe I feel a little bit embarrassed and I think also resentful."
Ah ha! It's sort of like this, but with the words already sorted into categories. It might be an interesting exercise to print this out and look at it the next time you have the thought that someone is being irrational. What you really mean is that their behavior bothers you. Then look at the sheet and see if you can name the emotions you're feeling. There's work to be done beyond that, but it's a great first step for learning how to put names to things you don't typically think about.
posted by MsMolly at 9:13 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I was going to call you out on this, but you actually did a pretty good job in one of your later comments at seeing the inherent illogic in your own statement. A logical response to not knowing how to deal would be saying "I don't know how to deal. Can you help me figure out how to deal? I wonder what I need to learn to help me figure out how to deal." An illogical response is "I don't know how to do this. I quit."
I wish I could find a link online to a tool the counselors at my old school use. It was a list of words describing emotions by category to help people figure out exactly what they were feeling. So, for example, if you said "I don't like that behavior. It's so illogical," and someone asked you to say a little bit more about what emotions come up for you in that situation, you could look at the list to help name your emotions. "Well, I think maybe I feel a little bit embarrassed and I think also resentful."
Ah ha! It's sort of like this, but with the words already sorted into categories. It might be an interesting exercise to print this out and look at it the next time you have the thought that someone is being irrational. What you really mean is that their behavior bothers you. Then look at the sheet and see if you can name the emotions you're feeling. There's work to be done beyond that, but it's a great first step for learning how to put names to things you don't typically think about.
posted by MsMolly at 9:13 AM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
But in my experience, my own behavior (and that of my guy friends) is more firmly rooted in reason....
Forgot to mention this one. Two points here.
1. If you are interested in doing research on a set of people, join a real research project, where you can learn to collect and analyse data in more "rational" manner. Gathering your data from experiences of your in-the-same-boat guy friends is a sure shot sign of real immaturity. Right, I know, "Hey, I am an adult", "We are all adults here" and "What does age matter anyway" but this post is exactly why it matters.
2. What makes you think people who agree with you (your in-the-same-boat guy friends) know any better? I mean if I were interested in learning more about men, the last people I'd ask are my female friends. Instead I'd make an effort to get to know more men, especially ones a little older than I am, who I admire or respect for any number of reasons. I'd make a sincere effort to get to know them better and understand why they are the way they are. And I wouldn't extrapolate that to ALL men:
Tom expects X in situation Y; not all men expect X in situation Y, but, if you want to be Tom's friend, you better remember that about him.
Finally, I write this not to lash out. I have met guys like yourself, that I also dropped like hot potatoes. And this is why. I'd do it a million times over.
posted by xm at 9:15 AM on January 10, 2011
Forgot to mention this one. Two points here.
1. If you are interested in doing research on a set of people, join a real research project, where you can learn to collect and analyse data in more "rational" manner. Gathering your data from experiences of your in-the-same-boat guy friends is a sure shot sign of real immaturity. Right, I know, "Hey, I am an adult", "We are all adults here" and "What does age matter anyway" but this post is exactly why it matters.
2. What makes you think people who agree with you (your in-the-same-boat guy friends) know any better? I mean if I were interested in learning more about men, the last people I'd ask are my female friends. Instead I'd make an effort to get to know more men, especially ones a little older than I am, who I admire or respect for any number of reasons. I'd make a sincere effort to get to know them better and understand why they are the way they are. And I wouldn't extrapolate that to ALL men:
Tom expects X in situation Y; not all men expect X in situation Y, but, if you want to be Tom's friend, you better remember that about him.
Finally, I write this not to lash out. I have met guys like yourself, that I also dropped like hot potatoes. And this is why. I'd do it a million times over.
posted by xm at 9:15 AM on January 10, 2011
Reading through this post and your follow-ups, I started constructing in my mind a long dissection of your views of rationality. But, it appears it's not really necessary, so I'll just condense it down to my conclusion: you are masking as logic what is actually a problem understanding humans. You call it "logic" because being logical sounds intelligent and desirable. But it's not really logical; instead, it's just a failure to appropriately interpret and respond to human behavior. (And, here, "human behavior" is not separate from logic, and it's certainly not the opposite of logic.) Remember that logic is only a tool, and it could be used for entirely appropriate reasons or as a means to, say, mask insanity, stupidity, or other foolishness. (This is a completely disturbing example, but it's the most clear to my mind right now. Have you seen the last video the Arizona shooter posted on Youtube? Every single thing he says is 'logical,' in that each fits perfectly into a syllogism. He probably felt very proud and intelligent for being so logical. But anyone who's not crazy can clearly see how very, very messed up, wrong, and illogical his claims actually are.... I'm not comparing you to the shooter, and I apologize if you even thought for a moment I was. I just want to bring home the fact that being 'logical' doesn't really count for much.)
I'm posting this, really, to nth this suggestion: see a therapist.
Here's my argument to promote this suggestion:
1) If one wishes to better understand human behavior and interact with others, then one should see a therapist.
2)You wish to better understand human behavior and interact with others.
/:. You should see a therapist.
You may have some underlying psychological issues that are making it difficult for you to accept emotions in yourself and others... Or you may just be a little awkward and could benefit from some pointers. Either way, a therapist will help.
posted by meese at 9:22 AM on January 10, 2011
I'm posting this, really, to nth this suggestion: see a therapist.
Here's my argument to promote this suggestion:
1) If one wishes to better understand human behavior and interact with others, then one should see a therapist.
2)You wish to better understand human behavior and interact with others.
/:. You should see a therapist.
You may have some underlying psychological issues that are making it difficult for you to accept emotions in yourself and others... Or you may just be a little awkward and could benefit from some pointers. Either way, a therapist will help.
posted by meese at 9:22 AM on January 10, 2011
The only part that I am going to write about is the challenges that you seem to experience with witnessing extreme emotions (e.g. crying? yelling?), mainly because I have also had a hard time interacting with people when they exhibit those same emotions, and one of my struggles included how to understand why people were behaving the way they did sometimes. Please note IMO this has nothing to do with gender, and I’m only discussing how to view the emotional part of pple. I also did not read all the responses, so I hope that I am not repeating comments.
I, too, have not understood sometimes why one person may yell or lash out in anger in response to something that seems minor. My response is usually to walk away when I experience that response, but I have to be honest – 90% I always walk away if the person exhibits or does something that I don’t want to deal with. I ran across this book upon recommendation of a friend (you don’t need the book for this concept, just pointing out that these are not my ideas), and it was interesting because it pointed out that the majority of people, upon confronting something that they were uncomfortable with (let’s just pretend tyrant, belligerent doctor for this example), either a) lashed out and yelled (anger/attack) or b) withdrew. The reason people reacted this way was because they were afraid and did not know what to do. Believe it or not, I never understood that the yelling = withdrawing, even though these are 2 sets of different people. So for a moment, you may understand why someone does what they do (please don't think that I am patronizing you by explaining this, I really did not understand that until I read descriptions and examples, within the last year or so).
Also, the book made a point that although 95% of the people withdrew or lashed out, that is not the best or most logical response. Let’s pretend that the belligerent doctor also does not take precautions during surgery and kills 1/5 patients per week – other people could make sure that he follows protocols, or they could call the medical institution, whatever, but instead they lash out or withdraw. Neither of those reactions solves the problem and both are not logical. In fact, the point of the book is that the best response would be to make the belligerent doctor feel comfortable, point out how he is acting, and have a conversation to solve the problem. Withdrawing and/or walking away, though, would definitely not solve it and is definitely not logical.
The other small thing that I am going to point out is that although you don’t realize it, deep down you do feel emotions and you just may not process it until you are immersed in the event or you may do so later. My example…why are you in the club over and over and over again? You said you don’t match up with people there and obviously have a horrible time (based on your description of how you perceive other people’s actions). Yet you are there, every week, spending a lot of money, using up a lot of time, and this activity is not working for you. Over and over and over again. Is this really logical? Deep down, do you feel something that drives you there? Loneliness? A desire to connect? (Only you can answer this) – but do think about it, it is not logical at all and I would bet that underlying it are emotions. If you could feel and acknowledge the emotion before you got into the situation(s), it may help you.
posted by Wolfster at 9:32 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I, too, have not understood sometimes why one person may yell or lash out in anger in response to something that seems minor. My response is usually to walk away when I experience that response, but I have to be honest – 90% I always walk away if the person exhibits or does something that I don’t want to deal with. I ran across this book upon recommendation of a friend (you don’t need the book for this concept, just pointing out that these are not my ideas), and it was interesting because it pointed out that the majority of people, upon confronting something that they were uncomfortable with (let’s just pretend tyrant, belligerent doctor for this example), either a) lashed out and yelled (anger/attack) or b) withdrew. The reason people reacted this way was because they were afraid and did not know what to do. Believe it or not, I never understood that the yelling = withdrawing, even though these are 2 sets of different people. So for a moment, you may understand why someone does what they do (please don't think that I am patronizing you by explaining this, I really did not understand that until I read descriptions and examples, within the last year or so).
Also, the book made a point that although 95% of the people withdrew or lashed out, that is not the best or most logical response. Let’s pretend that the belligerent doctor also does not take precautions during surgery and kills 1/5 patients per week – other people could make sure that he follows protocols, or they could call the medical institution, whatever, but instead they lash out or withdraw. Neither of those reactions solves the problem and both are not logical. In fact, the point of the book is that the best response would be to make the belligerent doctor feel comfortable, point out how he is acting, and have a conversation to solve the problem. Withdrawing and/or walking away, though, would definitely not solve it and is definitely not logical.
The other small thing that I am going to point out is that although you don’t realize it, deep down you do feel emotions and you just may not process it until you are immersed in the event or you may do so later. My example…why are you in the club over and over and over again? You said you don’t match up with people there and obviously have a horrible time (based on your description of how you perceive other people’s actions). Yet you are there, every week, spending a lot of money, using up a lot of time, and this activity is not working for you. Over and over and over again. Is this really logical? Deep down, do you feel something that drives you there? Loneliness? A desire to connect? (Only you can answer this) – but do think about it, it is not logical at all and I would bet that underlying it are emotions. If you could feel and acknowledge the emotion before you got into the situation(s), it may help you.
posted by Wolfster at 9:32 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Don't yet have time for a detailed response, but looking at the recent responses (many of which are useful), I guess I should clarify a few things in case they help paint the picture:
* I'm probably not as boring in real life as I sound here. Yes, I'm frightfully pedantic even in real life when having "intelligent conversation," but most of the time I spend with my friends (and strangers) is not like that.
You make friends purely to make them into relationships, and you're surprosed it doesn't work? (Women find this very, very creepy, particularly when you stop calling once your moves are rebuffed.) The 'feminine traits' disappear when you get to know women as actual people, rather than pick-up targets in the club?
No. Many are still close friends. Like "BFF" close. Even some that I've dated. Their cited reasons (there's the pedantry!) often involve how I don't judge them.
I'm going to probably hurt your feelings, but I'm going to risk cruelty in the hopes of being helpful.
Trouble is, you're not going to hurt my feelings by discussing things frankly -- and my assumption of the same from other people is obviously a problem of mine. I know I've touched some nerves, and you're absolutely right that the "you're an a-hole" feedback should be telling me something. It is.
In fact, I think we're narrowing down on a key issue. I'm perfectly fine with a person's outbursts so long as they're not directed at me. I've helped restore more than one relationship by being there, deeply, for both sides. I've just never been there for my own side.
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good"). I tried to understand why she was so mad, but that only got awkward. She later explained that it's because she doesn't trust my fashion sense at all (no real surprise), and that some years ago she thought she'd made it clear that she didn't need input in that department.
I harbor a fear of having to walk on eggshells in a relationship, since I don't know when I might trigger such outbursts. The irony is that while my friend got over the coat comment within seconds of yelling, it took me much longer to come back to normal. Overall, I was the emotional one.
Okay I need to catch an quick nap before work :-/. Thanks, and I'll be back...
posted by Talisman at 9:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
* I'm probably not as boring in real life as I sound here. Yes, I'm frightfully pedantic even in real life when having "intelligent conversation," but most of the time I spend with my friends (and strangers) is not like that.
You make friends purely to make them into relationships, and you're surprosed it doesn't work? (Women find this very, very creepy, particularly when you stop calling once your moves are rebuffed.) The 'feminine traits' disappear when you get to know women as actual people, rather than pick-up targets in the club?
No. Many are still close friends. Like "BFF" close. Even some that I've dated. Their cited reasons (there's the pedantry!) often involve how I don't judge them.
I'm going to probably hurt your feelings, but I'm going to risk cruelty in the hopes of being helpful.
Trouble is, you're not going to hurt my feelings by discussing things frankly -- and my assumption of the same from other people is obviously a problem of mine. I know I've touched some nerves, and you're absolutely right that the "you're an a-hole" feedback should be telling me something. It is.
In fact, I think we're narrowing down on a key issue. I'm perfectly fine with a person's outbursts so long as they're not directed at me. I've helped restore more than one relationship by being there, deeply, for both sides. I've just never been there for my own side.
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good"). I tried to understand why she was so mad, but that only got awkward. She later explained that it's because she doesn't trust my fashion sense at all (no real surprise), and that some years ago she thought she'd made it clear that she didn't need input in that department.
I harbor a fear of having to walk on eggshells in a relationship, since I don't know when I might trigger such outbursts. The irony is that while my friend got over the coat comment within seconds of yelling, it took me much longer to come back to normal. Overall, I was the emotional one.
Okay I need to catch an quick nap before work :-/. Thanks, and I'll be back...
posted by Talisman at 9:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Mod note: getting a ton of favorites doesn't justify calling someone an asshole. OP is not anonymous, email them if you have non-AskMe-safe comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:40 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:40 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: If you are interested in doing research on a set of people, join a real research project, where you can learn to collect and analyse data in more "rational" manner.
I'm not sure this is what I need. I'm published in emotion regulation research, and my piece was to do statistical analysis of the (neuroimaging and behavioral) data. I could try again to backtrack and explain that the observations I have in mind involve how frequently the men and women in my cohort lash out emotionally at each other, but it's obviously much more important for me to understand why I think this is an indicator of "irrationality" and how it's making me generally view women's behavior negatively.
posted by Talisman at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2011
I'm not sure this is what I need. I'm published in emotion regulation research, and my piece was to do statistical analysis of the (neuroimaging and behavioral) data. I could try again to backtrack and explain that the observations I have in mind involve how frequently the men and women in my cohort lash out emotionally at each other, but it's obviously much more important for me to understand why I think this is an indicator of "irrationality" and how it's making me generally view women's behavior negatively.
posted by Talisman at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: how frequently the men and women in my cohort lash out emotionally at each other
I also realize that I have an extremely selective cross-section here. As I'm not planning to make guy friends who are emotionally explosive, this may continue to be true.
posted by Talisman at 9:53 AM on January 10, 2011
I also realize that I have an extremely selective cross-section here. As I'm not planning to make guy friends who are emotionally explosive, this may continue to be true.
posted by Talisman at 9:53 AM on January 10, 2011
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good"). I tried to understand why she was so mad, but that only got awkward. She later explained that it's because she doesn't trust my fashion sense at all (no real surprise), and that some years ago she thought she'd made it clear that she didn't need input in that department.
I haven't commented on your original question because I think other people have had very good answers, but this specific thing is weird- I honestly don't understand why your friend would react the way she did to such a benign constructive comment, and her explanation just makes it weirder. If she'd already decided that your fashion sense is worthless, than why not mildly dismiss your comment with a "thanks, I'm not going to do that"? So if this friend is a source of your discomfort with relationships with women, romantic or otherwise, I have to say that you need more women friends in your pool.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:18 AM on January 10, 2011
I haven't commented on your original question because I think other people have had very good answers, but this specific thing is weird- I honestly don't understand why your friend would react the way she did to such a benign constructive comment, and her explanation just makes it weirder. If she'd already decided that your fashion sense is worthless, than why not mildly dismiss your comment with a "thanks, I'm not going to do that"? So if this friend is a source of your discomfort with relationships with women, romantic or otherwise, I have to say that you need more women friends in your pool.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:18 AM on January 10, 2011
... and by "discomfort" I mean unease.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:20 AM on January 10, 2011
posted by oneirodynia at 10:20 AM on January 10, 2011
I honestly don't understand why your friend would react the way she did to such a benign constructive comment
I do.
With all love for Talisman, he is coming across in this post as having a self-presentation style that can easily be read as arrogant and clueless and entitled. If someone who presented himself as if he thought he were King Reason started telling me how to dress, especially if he did it in a plonking "I know better than you" tone, I would lose my shit. Imagine Mr. Spock telling Lt. Uhura how to dress, and her potential reaction!
Most of my male partners (including my husband) have been hyper-rational "Aspergery" types. I remember my college boyfriend (a MacArthur Foundation-certified genius economist who is frequently lauded on the Blue) telling my BFF that she had "visible panty line" one evening. As she glared at him in outrage and I collapsed in helpless laughter, he said "What? Isn't that what it's called?" He had been so proud to learn this new term of fashion discourse that it hadn't occurred to him that it was not a complimentary or neutral descriptor.
Talisman, you are not a unique snowflake. You are one of many, many gentlemen in the world whose self-perception and self-presentation is repellent to many, many ladies in the world. Your options are either to find ladies who find the issues folks have identified vaguely amusing, or to change your self-perception and self-presentation.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
I do.
With all love for Talisman, he is coming across in this post as having a self-presentation style that can easily be read as arrogant and clueless and entitled. If someone who presented himself as if he thought he were King Reason started telling me how to dress, especially if he did it in a plonking "I know better than you" tone, I would lose my shit. Imagine Mr. Spock telling Lt. Uhura how to dress, and her potential reaction!
Most of my male partners (including my husband) have been hyper-rational "Aspergery" types. I remember my college boyfriend (a MacArthur Foundation-certified genius economist who is frequently lauded on the Blue) telling my BFF that she had "visible panty line" one evening. As she glared at him in outrage and I collapsed in helpless laughter, he said "What? Isn't that what it's called?" He had been so proud to learn this new term of fashion discourse that it hadn't occurred to him that it was not a complimentary or neutral descriptor.
Talisman, you are not a unique snowflake. You are one of many, many gentlemen in the world whose self-perception and self-presentation is repellent to many, many ladies in the world. Your options are either to find ladies who find the issues folks have identified vaguely amusing, or to change your self-perception and self-presentation.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good"). I tried to understand why she was so mad, but that only got awkward. She later explained that it's because she doesn't trust my fashion sense at all (no real surprise), and that some years ago she thought she'd made it clear that she didn't need input in that department.
Did you bring this up apropos of nothing? Is this a good example of what typically happens when women have emotional outburts around you and you can't figure out why? Is part of the "irrationality" that you attribute to women the inability to take criticism, or a joke? In other words, they take things too personally?
That would make more sense, and it's a common tact problem, easily solved.
1. Always be positive. Be very, very reluctant to be negative about anything, ever, when in casual conversation. A polite criticism sandwiched between compliments is still a criticism best left unsaid. This applies to all topics.
2. Do not make suggestions or give advice unless asked specifically, even when people/women are complaining to you about their problems. Just listen and say things like "I understand" "I see" etc.
If I'm wrong, please do clarify some more. It is hard to get a clear idea of the problem with little to go on.
posted by Nixy at 10:35 AM on January 10, 2011
Did you bring this up apropos of nothing? Is this a good example of what typically happens when women have emotional outburts around you and you can't figure out why? Is part of the "irrationality" that you attribute to women the inability to take criticism, or a joke? In other words, they take things too personally?
That would make more sense, and it's a common tact problem, easily solved.
1. Always be positive. Be very, very reluctant to be negative about anything, ever, when in casual conversation. A polite criticism sandwiched between compliments is still a criticism best left unsaid. This applies to all topics.
2. Do not make suggestions or give advice unless asked specifically, even when people/women are complaining to you about their problems. Just listen and say things like "I understand" "I see" etc.
If I'm wrong, please do clarify some more. It is hard to get a clear idea of the problem with little to go on.
posted by Nixy at 10:35 AM on January 10, 2011
it's obviously much more important for me to understand why I think this is an indicator of "irrationality" and how it's making me generally view women's behavior negatively
Okay, but you won't like it.
You have constructed your entire worldview on a lie, a lie to which you have bought in whole-heartedly.
That lie is that reason and logic are the greatest human impulses and activities, and that all other human impulses and activities are somehow lesser or unworthy.
This is simply false.
There are no such things as Vulcans. You are not Mr. Spock, and neither are any of your friends.
"And yet, and yet!" you say. No. Scientific inquiry requires reason and logic, and so do philosophy and mathematics and urban planning and all kinds of other professional disciplines. This is absolutely correct.
But work is not the whole of life. Work is a focused, goal-directed activity aiming at a particular outcome. Life is a river that carries us all along on its currents.
Your insistence that people "ought to" be rational and logical in their private lives is irrational--you are applying the rubrics of scientific inquiry to situations where they are simply not appropriate.
You need to understand life. And understanding life is not simply measuring it and hypothesizing about it. Understanding life is experiencing it and being aware of its chaos.
Let me recommend the book How to Be an Adult in Relationships by David Richo. It has a lot of wisdom about life.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [10 favorites]
Okay, but you won't like it.
You have constructed your entire worldview on a lie, a lie to which you have bought in whole-heartedly.
That lie is that reason and logic are the greatest human impulses and activities, and that all other human impulses and activities are somehow lesser or unworthy.
This is simply false.
There are no such things as Vulcans. You are not Mr. Spock, and neither are any of your friends.
"And yet, and yet!" you say. No. Scientific inquiry requires reason and logic, and so do philosophy and mathematics and urban planning and all kinds of other professional disciplines. This is absolutely correct.
But work is not the whole of life. Work is a focused, goal-directed activity aiming at a particular outcome. Life is a river that carries us all along on its currents.
Your insistence that people "ought to" be rational and logical in their private lives is irrational--you are applying the rubrics of scientific inquiry to situations where they are simply not appropriate.
You need to understand life. And understanding life is not simply measuring it and hypothesizing about it. Understanding life is experiencing it and being aware of its chaos.
Let me recommend the book How to Be an Adult in Relationships by David Richo. It has a lot of wisdom about life.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [10 favorites]
Your "logic" is your approach to solving a problem. Your friends' logic is their approach. This is not universal reason that is inherently true or correct. You have emotions just like anyone else, and these emotions inform your choices, no matter how "logical" you feel you are being.
To see yourself as more logical than other people, or even worse, more logical than an entire class of people (you know, roughly half of the population), is giving yourself too much credit.
I'm a woman. I've dated men who were much more "emotional" than I am.
I had a lot of friends like you in college: smart, arrogant, not necessarily good at getting women but assumed they should get any woman they wanted. They either put women on a pedestal or thought they were inferior. I was only treated with respect because I had a boyfriend and was seen as an non-female, essentially. My then-boyfriend and I wanted to start a "how to get a girlfriend" class for them where the first and only lesson was "Girls you like are people. However you treat other people, treat girls that way, too."
It doesn't sound like you want a girlfriend because you want a relationship-- mutual respect, love, comfort, partnership, etc. You want a girlfriend because that's what you think you're supposed to want.
A lot of girls probably don't want to date you much because you don't seem to have feelings. If you were a woman who gives off the "no feelings" vibe (and there are plenty of women who do), you would turn off plenty of men as well.
Don't put people into boxes.
posted by elpea at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011
To see yourself as more logical than other people, or even worse, more logical than an entire class of people (you know, roughly half of the population), is giving yourself too much credit.
I'm a woman. I've dated men who were much more "emotional" than I am.
I had a lot of friends like you in college: smart, arrogant, not necessarily good at getting women but assumed they should get any woman they wanted. They either put women on a pedestal or thought they were inferior. I was only treated with respect because I had a boyfriend and was seen as an non-female, essentially. My then-boyfriend and I wanted to start a "how to get a girlfriend" class for them where the first and only lesson was "Girls you like are people. However you treat other people, treat girls that way, too."
It doesn't sound like you want a girlfriend because you want a relationship-- mutual respect, love, comfort, partnership, etc. You want a girlfriend because that's what you think you're supposed to want.
A lot of girls probably don't want to date you much because you don't seem to have feelings. If you were a woman who gives off the "no feelings" vibe (and there are plenty of women who do), you would turn off plenty of men as well.
Don't put people into boxes.
posted by elpea at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011
* Stereotypically feminine traits like irrationality (which, for better or worse seems legitimate from my own observation) are hard for me to deal with. It doesn't help that I'm a mathematician. My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it (as all my guy friends seem to have done, and from conversations, it's not merely that it's endearing to them -- it was hard work to overcome).
This has already been quoted but I'm pointing out again because to me, this is BY FAR your biggest problem. I know because I recently came to my senses and dumped a guy like you, who liked to equate being female with being irrational. It's not that you said this- obviously you shouldn't say things like this, but the problem is that you even think it, at all. Frankly, it boils down to immaturity. I also firmly believe that any guy who thinks this sort of this does not respect women. I know because every time my ex accused me of being irrational due to my gender, I felt like he wasn't respecting what I was saying. He was invalidating my feelings and opinions. Because he didn't want to deal with the trouble of actually listening to me, he shut me down by saying my thoughts were not worth listening to (aka "irrational.") This is not only incredibly destructive to a relationship, but destructive to the person you do it to, even after you're gone. I've been struggling with the idea of dating now because after years of this behavior from him, I find it very difficult to believe that men truly respect me and aren't just placating me for sex or whatever it is they want. IT SUCKS. And I will never, ever get anywhere near a guy like that again. Because I have more self-respect now. So my guess is that with this attitude, the only type of girl you're gonna get is going to be one with low self-esteem. Which seems like the opposite of what you want.
Sorry to be so harsh, and obviously I'm speaking out of my own hurt too. But this sort of thinking is destructive to you and any girl you end up with. I agree with the people above who mentioned Gottman, his stuff is worth a read for you. But basically you need to grow up and learn to RESPECT women's opinions and feelings. Even if they are laced with emotion occasionally and therefore scary to your inner teenager. It's part of being an adult in a relationship. If a girl says something that seems irrational or emotional, the appropriate response is not "You're being irrational/ crazy/ pms/ other misogynistic thing." You may not immediately understand what her point is, but if you want to be her boyfriend, it's your job to remain calm and try to be supportive and listen and communicate. It is also okay to walk away if you do it right: "I want to have this conversation, but I need a few minutes to cool down first." Go walk around the block then or do whatever you need to collect yourself, but then come back.
If you don't like that, then the solution is not to have a girlfriend. Relationships are work, so if you aren't ready to take on the work, then don't suck some poor girl into what's going to ultimately be a crappy relationship. I know this doesn't address much of the other stuff in your post, but I pulled it out because it makes all the other points moot. (That is, even if you do manage to land a girlfriend, you'll have a hard time keeping her.) So spend more time thinking about the type of men women want to date, and once you're that guy, I think it will happen for you. There's plenty of info on the web to set you in the right direction, searching old metafilter threads might even help. But whether or not you can respect and communicate with women is a hundred times more important that whether you're bald or not. (And as a woman who's your age, I want to n-th that baldness is not that big of a deal, it happens to so many men, even at this age, that we can't really rule out guys based on it. Not to mention that we know any guy who has a lot of hair now could easily be balding within a few years anyway. We don't care. Or at least enough of us to form a reasonably large dating pool.)
posted by GastrocNemesis at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [5 favorites]
This has already been quoted but I'm pointing out again because to me, this is BY FAR your biggest problem. I know because I recently came to my senses and dumped a guy like you, who liked to equate being female with being irrational. It's not that you said this- obviously you shouldn't say things like this, but the problem is that you even think it, at all. Frankly, it boils down to immaturity. I also firmly believe that any guy who thinks this sort of this does not respect women. I know because every time my ex accused me of being irrational due to my gender, I felt like he wasn't respecting what I was saying. He was invalidating my feelings and opinions. Because he didn't want to deal with the trouble of actually listening to me, he shut me down by saying my thoughts were not worth listening to (aka "irrational.") This is not only incredibly destructive to a relationship, but destructive to the person you do it to, even after you're gone. I've been struggling with the idea of dating now because after years of this behavior from him, I find it very difficult to believe that men truly respect me and aren't just placating me for sex or whatever it is they want. IT SUCKS. And I will never, ever get anywhere near a guy like that again. Because I have more self-respect now. So my guess is that with this attitude, the only type of girl you're gonna get is going to be one with low self-esteem. Which seems like the opposite of what you want.
Sorry to be so harsh, and obviously I'm speaking out of my own hurt too. But this sort of thinking is destructive to you and any girl you end up with. I agree with the people above who mentioned Gottman, his stuff is worth a read for you. But basically you need to grow up and learn to RESPECT women's opinions and feelings. Even if they are laced with emotion occasionally and therefore scary to your inner teenager. It's part of being an adult in a relationship. If a girl says something that seems irrational or emotional, the appropriate response is not "You're being irrational/ crazy/ pms/ other misogynistic thing." You may not immediately understand what her point is, but if you want to be her boyfriend, it's your job to remain calm and try to be supportive and listen and communicate. It is also okay to walk away if you do it right: "I want to have this conversation, but I need a few minutes to cool down first." Go walk around the block then or do whatever you need to collect yourself, but then come back.
If you don't like that, then the solution is not to have a girlfriend. Relationships are work, so if you aren't ready to take on the work, then don't suck some poor girl into what's going to ultimately be a crappy relationship. I know this doesn't address much of the other stuff in your post, but I pulled it out because it makes all the other points moot. (That is, even if you do manage to land a girlfriend, you'll have a hard time keeping her.) So spend more time thinking about the type of men women want to date, and once you're that guy, I think it will happen for you. There's plenty of info on the web to set you in the right direction, searching old metafilter threads might even help. But whether or not you can respect and communicate with women is a hundred times more important that whether you're bald or not. (And as a woman who's your age, I want to n-th that baldness is not that big of a deal, it happens to so many men, even at this age, that we can't really rule out guys based on it. Not to mention that we know any guy who has a lot of hair now could easily be balding within a few years anyway. We don't care. Or at least enough of us to form a reasonably large dating pool.)
posted by GastrocNemesis at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2011 [5 favorites]
The other thing about the incident you describe is that you depict yourself as being rational and your female friend as being irrational.
But actually you were being irrational, in that you were breaking the rules of interaction--both the general rules of interaction (it is not appropriate in our society for male friends to suggest that their female friends should wear different clothing than they are wearing) and the specific rules of interaction that your friend had set out for you (she had told you she didn't want fashion advice from you). Your having forgotten the latter doesn't negate the former.
So her outburst reflected impatience with your irrationality, not irrationality on her part.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2011
But actually you were being irrational, in that you were breaking the rules of interaction--both the general rules of interaction (it is not appropriate in our society for male friends to suggest that their female friends should wear different clothing than they are wearing) and the specific rules of interaction that your friend had set out for you (she had told you she didn't want fashion advice from you). Your having forgotten the latter doesn't negate the former.
So her outburst reflected impatience with your irrationality, not irrationality on her part.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:41 AM on January 10, 2011
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good"). I tried to understand why she was so mad, but that only got awkward. She later explained that it's because she doesn't trust my fashion sense at all (no real surprise), and that some years ago she thought she'd made it clear that she didn't need input in that department.
I am a female and if a guy I had told to please not input me in his fashion sense and then he had said what you said, I would probably have been very irritated. This is particularly since I feel I have my own fashion sense and I would probably only seek out opinions of people whose fashion sense is similar/admirable. Perhaps it is akin to if I had offered my input and opinion on a physics problem to a physicist and I have no clue about physics. I am sure that physicist would be irritated by my opinions would be wondering why I was even bothering when we would both know I had no clue what I was talking about in that regard.
posted by mrdmsy at 10:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I am a female and if a guy I had told to please not input me in his fashion sense and then he had said what you said, I would probably have been very irritated. This is particularly since I feel I have my own fashion sense and I would probably only seek out opinions of people whose fashion sense is similar/admirable. Perhaps it is akin to if I had offered my input and opinion on a physics problem to a physicist and I have no clue about physics. I am sure that physicist would be irritated by my opinions would be wondering why I was even bothering when we would both know I had no clue what I was talking about in that regard.
posted by mrdmsy at 10:58 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Look, at some point you are going to be old and shriveled and pee 50 times a day. You won't understand modern technology very well. You will struggle to hear and read and stand up, let alone get it up. Or at least all of these things will come to pass if you are lucky enough to lead a long, full life. My guess is you may wish you had figured out how to have some productive companionship by the time you get to that point.
Are male and female brains different? Sure. Are the differences as pronounced as society likes to claim they are? That's debatable
Romance is an adventure. Falling in love is a high. It's effects on the brain mimic cocaine. Love is, by definition, a chemical explosion that largely causes us to view someone as more awesome than they probably are in reality. This is irrational. It often crashes and burns. But it also often rocks, and rocks hard.
People aren't science projects. They are not controllable or predictable, but a great many of them are truly kind and lovable and worthy of your trust and admiration. If you continue to steer your relationships with the part of you that evaluates and judges rather than experiences, you will never feel the kinds of love that transcend those systems.
We have reason AND emotions. Stands to reason there is a purpose for both. I'd say weighing either one too heavily over the other is pretty irrational.
posted by amycup at 11:33 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Are male and female brains different? Sure. Are the differences as pronounced as society likes to claim they are? That's debatable
Romance is an adventure. Falling in love is a high. It's effects on the brain mimic cocaine. Love is, by definition, a chemical explosion that largely causes us to view someone as more awesome than they probably are in reality. This is irrational. It often crashes and burns. But it also often rocks, and rocks hard.
People aren't science projects. They are not controllable or predictable, but a great many of them are truly kind and lovable and worthy of your trust and admiration. If you continue to steer your relationships with the part of you that evaluates and judges rather than experiences, you will never feel the kinds of love that transcend those systems.
We have reason AND emotions. Stands to reason there is a purpose for both. I'd say weighing either one too heavily over the other is pretty irrational.
posted by amycup at 11:33 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away.
You know, thinking about this statement further, I suspect that there was some point in your past when this was a strategy that worked for you. When you were a kid, was there someone in your family who yelled when you didn't understand them, or they didn't understand you? It would have hurt a lot, and as a kid you wouldn't have had the life experience to know what to do, so you removed yourself from the presence of the person who was hurting you. That was a very smart choice and a great protective tactic for the age you were then!
But now, you come up against similar situations. And the response that worked for you back then just provokes more anger and hurt. So you need to learn a new way of dealing with it. You're taking the first step by gathering advice from people in this thread. The next step is to recognize your reaction as it's happening. "Hey, there's that feeling again. I just want to retreat and get away from this person! Hey, wait. I figured out that response doesn't get me what I want. Ok, let's think some more about what to do the next time this happens." Then there's the even harder part: getting to the bottom of what's really bugging you in these encounters. That probably needs a therapist's help, in the same way that most of us can change the sparkplugs in our own cars, but need a mechanic for serious work on the transmission or the brakes.
posted by MsMolly at 11:36 AM on January 10, 2011
You know, thinking about this statement further, I suspect that there was some point in your past when this was a strategy that worked for you. When you were a kid, was there someone in your family who yelled when you didn't understand them, or they didn't understand you? It would have hurt a lot, and as a kid you wouldn't have had the life experience to know what to do, so you removed yourself from the presence of the person who was hurting you. That was a very smart choice and a great protective tactic for the age you were then!
But now, you come up against similar situations. And the response that worked for you back then just provokes more anger and hurt. So you need to learn a new way of dealing with it. You're taking the first step by gathering advice from people in this thread. The next step is to recognize your reaction as it's happening. "Hey, there's that feeling again. I just want to retreat and get away from this person! Hey, wait. I figured out that response doesn't get me what I want. Ok, let's think some more about what to do the next time this happens." Then there's the even harder part: getting to the bottom of what's really bugging you in these encounters. That probably needs a therapist's help, in the same way that most of us can change the sparkplugs in our own cars, but need a mechanic for serious work on the transmission or the brakes.
posted by MsMolly at 11:36 AM on January 10, 2011
Are male and female brains different? Sure.
Actually, even this is debatable. See the recent books Brain Storm by Rebecca Jordan-Young and Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. Most of the conventional wisdom on sex differences in neurology is based on horrible science. Talk about irrationality!
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:43 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
Actually, even this is debatable. See the recent books Brain Storm by Rebecca Jordan-Young and Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. Most of the conventional wisdom on sex differences in neurology is based on horrible science. Talk about irrationality!
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:43 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]
I recently got yelled at by a close (female) friend for offering a fashion suggestion ("I like that coat, but I think a pea coat would look really good").
What was the context? Did your friend ask for your opinion? Did you offer your opinion unsolicited? Did your friend just proudly announce that they bought a new coat? Were they showing it off, enjoying how good they looked in it? What was happening before you made your statement? The social context here is key.
I could try again to backtrack and explain that the observations I have in mind involve how frequently the men and women in my cohort lash out emotionally at each other, but it's obviously much more important for me to understand why I think this is an indicator of "irrationality" and how it's making me generally view women's behavior negatively.
You're right. Frequency is not the issue here. What's actually important is learning to step back and ask why the person you are talking to, male or female is having an emotional response. What are their emotions? What provoked them? Then, you can learn to anticipate how people will respond to your actions and act accordingly.
"Lash out emotionally" is a charged term (it implies hostility, impulsiveness, and loud vocal tones) and when you say that you would like to see how frequently women do it (with the implication that women are more prone to "lashing out" than men), it's almost as insulting as calling women "irrational".
What about using more neutral term that don't reduce people to a binary of male/female and their behaviors to lash out/do not lash out: "I would like to learn more about people's emotional responses to my actions, and how my behaviors are causing these emotional responses."
Kudos for accepting criticism graciously, and for undertaking the hard work of self examination. I think you're completely right that unpacking what the world "irrational" means to you will offer insight into how you view yourself.
posted by ladypants at 11:44 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
What was the context? Did your friend ask for your opinion? Did you offer your opinion unsolicited? Did your friend just proudly announce that they bought a new coat? Were they showing it off, enjoying how good they looked in it? What was happening before you made your statement? The social context here is key.
I could try again to backtrack and explain that the observations I have in mind involve how frequently the men and women in my cohort lash out emotionally at each other, but it's obviously much more important for me to understand why I think this is an indicator of "irrationality" and how it's making me generally view women's behavior negatively.
You're right. Frequency is not the issue here. What's actually important is learning to step back and ask why the person you are talking to, male or female is having an emotional response. What are their emotions? What provoked them? Then, you can learn to anticipate how people will respond to your actions and act accordingly.
"Lash out emotionally" is a charged term (it implies hostility, impulsiveness, and loud vocal tones) and when you say that you would like to see how frequently women do it (with the implication that women are more prone to "lashing out" than men), it's almost as insulting as calling women "irrational".
What about using more neutral term that don't reduce people to a binary of male/female and their behaviors to lash out/do not lash out: "I would like to learn more about people's emotional responses to my actions, and how my behaviors are causing these emotional responses."
Kudos for accepting criticism graciously, and for undertaking the hard work of self examination. I think you're completely right that unpacking what the world "irrational" means to you will offer insight into how you view yourself.
posted by ladypants at 11:44 AM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: in that you were breaking the rules of interaction--both the general rules of interaction (it is not appropriate in our society for male friends to suggest that their female friends should wear different clothing than they are wearing
I think an even more important unspoken rule was broken in the process: you do not yell at well-intentioned friends (unless their behavior was particularly egregious, which I think even she agrees it was not). But I don't hold it against her. She'll be the first to admit she has strong emotions that she shares effusively, and she's not ashamed of that (although she's recently tried
I'd like to summarize some thoughts:
All emotions are equal valid. Not all behaviors caused by those feelings are, for some definition of "valid" that I'm still trying to work out.
All behaviors can be explained if one examines their causes closely enough (she had told me long ago I shouldn't offer fashion advice / she was hungry / fashion-ally abused as a child etc.). I cut others nearly infinite slack on their behavior (even if I find the behavior uncomfortable; hence the self-description of being "forgiving to a fault"), and leave no slack for myself (perhaps because I don't expect or always receive the same understanding from others).
I have to get back to work right now. I'll review all the responses in this thread, and in the future intend to ask questions that can help me figure out "appropriate" emotional responses -- both of myself and others.
posted by Talisman at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2011
I think an even more important unspoken rule was broken in the process: you do not yell at well-intentioned friends (unless their behavior was particularly egregious, which I think even she agrees it was not). But I don't hold it against her. She'll be the first to admit she has strong emotions that she shares effusively, and she's not ashamed of that (although she's recently tried
I'd like to summarize some thoughts:
All emotions are equal valid. Not all behaviors caused by those feelings are, for some definition of "valid" that I'm still trying to work out.
All behaviors can be explained if one examines their causes closely enough (she had told me long ago I shouldn't offer fashion advice / she was hungry / fashion-ally abused as a child etc.). I cut others nearly infinite slack on their behavior (even if I find the behavior uncomfortable; hence the self-description of being "forgiving to a fault"), and leave no slack for myself (perhaps because I don't expect or always receive the same understanding from others).
I have to get back to work right now. I'll review all the responses in this thread, and in the future intend to ask questions that can help me figure out "appropriate" emotional responses -- both of myself and others.
posted by Talisman at 12:31 PM on January 10, 2011
I think an even more important unspoken rule was broken in the process: you do not yell at well-intentioned friends
She has the excuses of impatience and anger on her side--sometimes people break rules in the heat of emotion.
You, on the other hand, were at best clueless, at worst smug.
See, you seem to keep missing a really key point--people's emotions influence their actions. Yours do, too.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2011
She has the excuses of impatience and anger on her side--sometimes people break rules in the heat of emotion.
You, on the other hand, were at best clueless, at worst smug.
See, you seem to keep missing a really key point--people's emotions influence their actions. Yours do, too.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: Were they showing it off, enjoying how good they looked in it? What was happening before you made your statement? The social context here is key.
Yes, I admit it wasn't the cleverest of times to bring it up: it was just she and I going to the club, and she had just recently commented on woes about meeting guys there. She's a very attractive girl, and I honestly did think she looks better in a pea coat than that flannel. I do understand she'd rather feel sexy than hear about my advice (especially because my own fashion sense is terrible). Her response started with something along the lines of "What the hell! Why are you trying to tell me what to wear?!"
I understand tact and know how I can do this better in the future (e.g., not at all). I still haven't learned how to appropriately respond to outbursts (I mean this for both men and women), injustices (being cheated on), and other responses I don't feel comfortable with. I'll work on this.
posted by Talisman at 12:43 PM on January 10, 2011
Yes, I admit it wasn't the cleverest of times to bring it up: it was just she and I going to the club, and she had just recently commented on woes about meeting guys there. She's a very attractive girl, and I honestly did think she looks better in a pea coat than that flannel. I do understand she'd rather feel sexy than hear about my advice (especially because my own fashion sense is terrible). Her response started with something along the lines of "What the hell! Why are you trying to tell me what to wear?!"
I understand tact and know how I can do this better in the future (e.g., not at all). I still haven't learned how to appropriately respond to outbursts (I mean this for both men and women), injustices (being cheated on), and other responses I don't feel comfortable with. I'll work on this.
posted by Talisman at 12:43 PM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: She has the excuses of impatience and anger on her side--sometimes people break rules in the heat of emotion.
I think I've already indicated that I understand and appreciate this.
You, on the other hand, were at best clueless, at worst smug.
See, you seem to keep missing a really key point--people's emotions influence their actions. Yours do, too.
In case I haven't made it clear thus far (I think I have), I understand this too. Again, I'm trying to figure out how to express them appropriately.
FWIW, I can't help but feel condescended to by most of your posts. If you're doing that on purpose, please stop. (There's my first attempt at voicing my emotional response :)
posted by Talisman at 12:54 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think I've already indicated that I understand and appreciate this.
You, on the other hand, were at best clueless, at worst smug.
See, you seem to keep missing a really key point--people's emotions influence their actions. Yours do, too.
In case I haven't made it clear thus far (I think I have), I understand this too. Again, I'm trying to figure out how to express them appropriately.
FWIW, I can't help but feel condescended to by most of your posts. If you're doing that on purpose, please stop. (There's my first attempt at voicing my emotional response :)
posted by Talisman at 12:54 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
You live in the cognitive part of your brain, which is a problem a lot of smart, hyperrational guys have. That is such an area of strength for you that you use it for problems that it is not a good tool for. ("When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.") Romance is not cognitive. It's more of an art. That's the source of your problem.
I suggest getting in touch with the rest of you. Sports, yoga, art, playing with animals, massage, anything really sensuous, etc. You can't calculate or reason your way through (or into) a relationship. It's more of a feel thing.
Oh, and by the way, if you're anything like I was, your cognition is strongly, strongly affected by emotions you're probably not even aware of. You aren't as rational as you think you are -- it's just that you're so clever you can rationalIZE anything. I used to think I was rational and the women I knew were irrational, but really, looking back, I see that mostly I just had the ability to rationalize my position which was at it's root emotional/nonrational better than they did, but that they in fact were no more wrong than I was.
You need to learn how to relate with people as people instead of as computers with bodies. Yourself first.
posted by callmejay at 1:01 PM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
I suggest getting in touch with the rest of you. Sports, yoga, art, playing with animals, massage, anything really sensuous, etc. You can't calculate or reason your way through (or into) a relationship. It's more of a feel thing.
Oh, and by the way, if you're anything like I was, your cognition is strongly, strongly affected by emotions you're probably not even aware of. You aren't as rational as you think you are -- it's just that you're so clever you can rationalIZE anything. I used to think I was rational and the women I knew were irrational, but really, looking back, I see that mostly I just had the ability to rationalize my position which was at it's root emotional/nonrational better than they did, but that they in fact were no more wrong than I was.
You need to learn how to relate with people as people instead of as computers with bodies. Yourself first.
posted by callmejay at 1:01 PM on January 10, 2011 [3 favorites]
Oh and learn how to scream at sports or something equally "irrational" and mean it. That'd be a good exercise. Instead of looking down on the people who do, start looking up at them for getting something you don't.
That was a big turning point for me -- realizing that the strengths I happen to have (strong rational ability -- I'm a computer programmer) aren't the only ones that matter. People I once would have considered dumb or silly I now realize have intuitive, emotional, artistic, instinctive, empathetic, etc. skills miles beyond mine.
posted by callmejay at 1:05 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
That was a big turning point for me -- realizing that the strengths I happen to have (strong rational ability -- I'm a computer programmer) aren't the only ones that matter. People I once would have considered dumb or silly I now realize have intuitive, emotional, artistic, instinctive, empathetic, etc. skills miles beyond mine.
posted by callmejay at 1:05 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: You need to learn how to relate with people as people instead of as computers with bodies. Yourself first.
Yes, this.
posted by Talisman at 1:06 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, this.
posted by Talisman at 1:06 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
About your friend's coat:
Was she really yelling? If so, that does seem over the top to me.
If she was just raising her voice in exasperation, but it felt like a more serious attack/lashing out to you, maybe you have a lower tolerance for expressions of (let's say) medium-strong emotions than most people do. I've been the voice-raiser in that kind of exchange, and the emotion I'm feeling then is not real anger or anything enduring but it's a "oh for pete's sake, butt out, you know-it-all" feeling.
(Of course, it's hard to say objectively where "yelling" begins and "raising voice in exasperation" ends)
One useful thing to maybe think about is Deborah Tannen's books about different communication styles of men and women. A main idea of hers is that it's common for women to talk about a situation or problem and expect their listener to just listen and empathize ("wow, that must have been tough") -- whereas it's more common for men to expect that talking about a situation or problem is tacitly expecting a listener to offer solutions ("you could fix it by doing such-and-such"). When a man helpfully gives the advice/solutions type of answer, a woman feels as if he is violating a conversational norm (that he should just be empathizing) and trying to be bossy or suggest that she doesn't know how to solve problems. Is it possible you've run into this kind of dynamic, and that women have reacted to you in an exasperated way because of this?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:33 PM on January 10, 2011
Was she really yelling? If so, that does seem over the top to me.
If she was just raising her voice in exasperation, but it felt like a more serious attack/lashing out to you, maybe you have a lower tolerance for expressions of (let's say) medium-strong emotions than most people do. I've been the voice-raiser in that kind of exchange, and the emotion I'm feeling then is not real anger or anything enduring but it's a "oh for pete's sake, butt out, you know-it-all" feeling.
(Of course, it's hard to say objectively where "yelling" begins and "raising voice in exasperation" ends)
One useful thing to maybe think about is Deborah Tannen's books about different communication styles of men and women. A main idea of hers is that it's common for women to talk about a situation or problem and expect their listener to just listen and empathize ("wow, that must have been tough") -- whereas it's more common for men to expect that talking about a situation or problem is tacitly expecting a listener to offer solutions ("you could fix it by doing such-and-such"). When a man helpfully gives the advice/solutions type of answer, a woman feels as if he is violating a conversational norm (that he should just be empathizing) and trying to be bossy or suggest that she doesn't know how to solve problems. Is it possible you've run into this kind of dynamic, and that women have reacted to you in an exasperated way because of this?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:33 PM on January 10, 2011
Another question: do you have this kind of emotional emptiness/blockage/whatever with respect to positive emotions like joy too? Or is it just negative emotions like anger?
I mean, you don't have to experience joy at sports, maybe you just aren't that into sports. But do you get joy from anything -- music? dancing? playing with dogs? some other hobby?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:36 PM on January 10, 2011
I mean, you don't have to experience joy at sports, maybe you just aren't that into sports. But do you get joy from anything -- music? dancing? playing with dogs? some other hobby?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:36 PM on January 10, 2011
Yes, I admit it wasn't the cleverest of times to bring it up: it was just she and I going to the club, and she had just recently commented on woes about meeting guys there. She's a very attractive girl, and I honestly did think she looks better in a pea coat than that flannel.
Were you guys getting dressed, or already out? In other words, was it too late for her to do anything about the jacket she had selected? Because then I get it - at that point, your advice isn't going to be taken as advice, but rather you telling her she was wrong. Once she's already out the door, the most important thing is confidence, which you unintentionally weakened.
I have a friend who does this kind of thing all the time, and it drives me up the wall. Now, I'm a guy, and I also don't give a ton of thought to my appearance. But he will, for example, tell me that he doesn't like a haircut I just got, at which point I yell at him because come on man, I have to walk around with this haircut for a month! Telling me it looks bad does nothing for me except make me feel self-conscious for that month. I recognize that this is a minor part of your question, but I wanted to jump in with that possible explanation.
posted by Ragged Richard at 1:36 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Were you guys getting dressed, or already out? In other words, was it too late for her to do anything about the jacket she had selected? Because then I get it - at that point, your advice isn't going to be taken as advice, but rather you telling her she was wrong. Once she's already out the door, the most important thing is confidence, which you unintentionally weakened.
I have a friend who does this kind of thing all the time, and it drives me up the wall. Now, I'm a guy, and I also don't give a ton of thought to my appearance. But he will, for example, tell me that he doesn't like a haircut I just got, at which point I yell at him because come on man, I have to walk around with this haircut for a month! Telling me it looks bad does nothing for me except make me feel self-conscious for that month. I recognize that this is a minor part of your question, but I wanted to jump in with that possible explanation.
posted by Ragged Richard at 1:36 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
A further thought -
If you mainly have a problem with the (or if your friends tend to exhibit the) negative emotions more, it might help your reaction to think about the very wide range of emotions that might make someone snap at someone else. Here are a few that jump to mind, and of course each of these comes in degrees too (you can be a little bit irritated or very irritated):
impatience
exasperation
irritation
annoyance
possessiveness
jealousy (overprotectiveness of things you do have)
envy (wanting things you don't have but which others have)
wounded pride
sadness
loneliness
defensiveness
anger
So, full-bore anger is way on one end of the spectrum. There are a lot of other "lesser" negative emotions -- do you experience those "lesser" emotions, and just suppress anger, or do you suppress all of them?
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:01 PM on January 10, 2011
If you mainly have a problem with the (or if your friends tend to exhibit the) negative emotions more, it might help your reaction to think about the very wide range of emotions that might make someone snap at someone else. Here are a few that jump to mind, and of course each of these comes in degrees too (you can be a little bit irritated or very irritated):
impatience
exasperation
irritation
annoyance
possessiveness
jealousy (overprotectiveness of things you do have)
envy (wanting things you don't have but which others have)
wounded pride
sadness
loneliness
defensiveness
anger
So, full-bore anger is way on one end of the spectrum. There are a lot of other "lesser" negative emotions -- do you experience those "lesser" emotions, and just suppress anger, or do you suppress all of them?
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:01 PM on January 10, 2011
Talisman, you and LobsterMitten just reminded me of a mnemonic my friend taught me that I thought was brilliant. If you or someone else is freaking out, ask
Am I (Are they) Hungry? Angry? Lonely? Tired? Scared?
That pretty much covers most of the bases for most freak-outs. I tend to get very irritable when I'm hungry, and I eventually figured out that my boss would flip out about little things around 3:00 pm if he'd skipped lunch. It helped me deal with his behavior and not take it personally.
My friend learned the mnemonic in AA. I confess, this is one of the reasons I think AA is awesome. Admitedly, it's a small sample set, but everyone I know who has done AA has found it to be a valuable experience. As far as I can tell, AA & Weight Watchers are the two religions that seem to get 100% positive reviews.
posted by ladypants at 2:12 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Am I (Are they) Hungry? Angry? Lonely? Tired? Scared?
That pretty much covers most of the bases for most freak-outs. I tend to get very irritable when I'm hungry, and I eventually figured out that my boss would flip out about little things around 3:00 pm if he'd skipped lunch. It helped me deal with his behavior and not take it personally.
My friend learned the mnemonic in AA. I confess, this is one of the reasons I think AA is awesome. Admitedly, it's a small sample set, but everyone I know who has done AA has found it to be a valuable experience. As far as I can tell, AA & Weight Watchers are the two religions that seem to get 100% positive reviews.
posted by ladypants at 2:12 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, this trait that you are proud of upholding:
uncompromising honesty
is not really something that attracts a lot of people, men or women. Or at least not the "you look fat" type of honesty.
"I feel vulnerable right now" type of honesty, on the other hand, has more to do with sharing, which people actually do like. Maybe you have confused the two?
Not unless you're EXTREMELY FUNNY or CHARMING get away with the "you look fat" type of honesty (and even those people will get labeled as "a-holes" by at least a handful of detractors). You've been snookered into the idea that this type of honesty is a value that society loves, when it is NO SUCH THING. You seem to believe that because you are honest, you are a "good" person, and therefore, you deserve love, or at least some respect. No, no, no. Society hates the "you look fat" type honesty. Repeat: SOCIETY HATES THIS. An unabashedly, outspoken honest man or woman is an enemy of society.
Many of us had to learn this the long, hard way. We all have moments when we "think we know the truth", and somewhere along the way, we learned that others don't take kindly to our butting in and telling them so. So we learn to say things differently. Or when matters are minor (like a peacoat), we learn to shut up.
Shutting up. You need to learn this latter skill if you're to function in society. You don't seem to have learned this yet. I'm only saying this because you seem like you want to be liked by people (in this case, women). For those who really don't give a shit about what people think, honesty is fine. You seem like you give a shit about people liking you, so you need to learn when to wield the honesty club and when to put it away.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 2:30 PM on January 10, 2011
uncompromising honesty
is not really something that attracts a lot of people, men or women. Or at least not the "you look fat" type of honesty.
"I feel vulnerable right now" type of honesty, on the other hand, has more to do with sharing, which people actually do like. Maybe you have confused the two?
Not unless you're EXTREMELY FUNNY or CHARMING get away with the "you look fat" type of honesty (and even those people will get labeled as "a-holes" by at least a handful of detractors). You've been snookered into the idea that this type of honesty is a value that society loves, when it is NO SUCH THING. You seem to believe that because you are honest, you are a "good" person, and therefore, you deserve love, or at least some respect. No, no, no. Society hates the "you look fat" type honesty. Repeat: SOCIETY HATES THIS. An unabashedly, outspoken honest man or woman is an enemy of society.
Many of us had to learn this the long, hard way. We all have moments when we "think we know the truth", and somewhere along the way, we learned that others don't take kindly to our butting in and telling them so. So we learn to say things differently. Or when matters are minor (like a peacoat), we learn to shut up.
Shutting up. You need to learn this latter skill if you're to function in society. You don't seem to have learned this yet. I'm only saying this because you seem like you want to be liked by people (in this case, women). For those who really don't give a shit about what people think, honesty is fine. You seem like you give a shit about people liking you, so you need to learn when to wield the honesty club and when to put it away.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 2:30 PM on January 10, 2011
And I'm not saying people DON'T appreciate criticism. People do ask for it. But you'll know about it when that happens, because you'll be asked, and your buddy or whoever will let you know that this is what they like about you, you're ability to criticize them.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2011
posted by The ____ of Justice at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2011
Response by poster: LobsterMitten: If she was just raising her voice in exasperation, but it felt like a more serious attack/lashing out to you, maybe you have a lower tolerance for expressions of (let's say) medium-strong emotions than most people do.
Bingo, oh, bingo. Seconds later she was over it and I was still rattled. It really was nothing much more than a "Jeeez! Why are you giving me fashion advice?!" Attempts shortly later to understand the magnitude of the reaction were met with a "Huh? Are we still talking about this?" kind of response. Perhaps I could grow a thicker skin about some things. God help me if I ever set foot in NYC.
As for your other questions: I often feel sad (but accept it without dwelling on it); sometimes let annoyance and irritation through (actually: at work and with family, somehow rarely at friends); almost never envy; jealousy sometimes strongly (but turn it against myself).
ladypants: I think my current problem is that I'm "too forgiving" instead of "not forgiving / understanding enough." That is, yes I am overwhelmed by people's reactions, but I never blame them. Not even when they treat me badly.
As an example: this same friend and I, early in our friendship, "got frisky" occasionally. Normally while sober. Once she was drunk and invited me over. Nothing much happened, but when she woke up in bed the next morning (both of us mostly naked), she shrieked "OMG what are you doing here?!" I was like a deer in the headlights, and I'm still not sure I'd be able to explain to a girl why that hurts (without feeling like a schmuck) if it happened today.
Mostly I hesitate to express my hurt because I feel like a schmuck for feeling hurt. I need to learn how to set boundaries appropriately.
posted by Talisman at 2:57 PM on January 10, 2011
Bingo, oh, bingo. Seconds later she was over it and I was still rattled. It really was nothing much more than a "Jeeez! Why are you giving me fashion advice?!" Attempts shortly later to understand the magnitude of the reaction were met with a "Huh? Are we still talking about this?" kind of response. Perhaps I could grow a thicker skin about some things. God help me if I ever set foot in NYC.
As for your other questions: I often feel sad (but accept it without dwelling on it); sometimes let annoyance and irritation through (actually: at work and with family, somehow rarely at friends); almost never envy; jealousy sometimes strongly (but turn it against myself).
ladypants: I think my current problem is that I'm "too forgiving" instead of "not forgiving / understanding enough." That is, yes I am overwhelmed by people's reactions, but I never blame them. Not even when they treat me badly.
As an example: this same friend and I, early in our friendship, "got frisky" occasionally. Normally while sober. Once she was drunk and invited me over. Nothing much happened, but when she woke up in bed the next morning (both of us mostly naked), she shrieked "OMG what are you doing here?!" I was like a deer in the headlights, and I'm still not sure I'd be able to explain to a girl why that hurts (without feeling like a schmuck) if it happened today.
Mostly I hesitate to express my hurt because I feel like a schmuck for feeling hurt. I need to learn how to set boundaries appropriately.
posted by Talisman at 2:57 PM on January 10, 2011
Best answer: That's a good point. Is the "uncompromising honesty" combined with perfectionism? Are you very hard on yourself, holding yourself to very high (or unachievable) standards, and do you extend that to others? That seems like an unhappy road, if so -- it's emotionally exhausting to never feel like you've quite gotten things right, and it can be draining or hurtful to others, to be often "helpfully" told out ways they could improve. If you think this might be part of the problem, it might be helpful to talk with a friend/therapist to get some perspective on ways your perspective might be distorted by perfectionism.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:02 PM on January 10, 2011
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:02 PM on January 10, 2011
Regarding the friend who said "OMG what are you doing here?" I think I would find that very upsetting. It's normal to be hurt or feel rejected at that reaction.
Regarding your getting rattled by expressions of medium-strong emotions, that's a good thing to recognize and something you can work on. (Also it's common, don't feel like a weirdo.) Did you get rattled because you felt like it was a judgment about *you* (like she was saying "you are bad"), when she just meant "knock it off"? Did you get rattled because when you were a kid, there was no display of irritation/anger in your house? Or maybe there was a lot of display of irritation/anger directed at you and you learned to just hide from it?
Is it possible that one of your parents had a problem with alcohol or anger or self-control, and you've learned to be placating and think that things are your fault as a result? (here's one list of common features of adult children of alcoholics, there are many more resources about this online too)
(You don't have to answer here, just some things to think about. Any of these things would be something you could usefully work on with a therapist.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:09 PM on January 10, 2011
Regarding your getting rattled by expressions of medium-strong emotions, that's a good thing to recognize and something you can work on. (Also it's common, don't feel like a weirdo.) Did you get rattled because you felt like it was a judgment about *you* (like she was saying "you are bad"), when she just meant "knock it off"? Did you get rattled because when you were a kid, there was no display of irritation/anger in your house? Or maybe there was a lot of display of irritation/anger directed at you and you learned to just hide from it?
Is it possible that one of your parents had a problem with alcohol or anger or self-control, and you've learned to be placating and think that things are your fault as a result? (here's one list of common features of adult children of alcoholics, there are many more resources about this online too)
(You don't have to answer here, just some things to think about. Any of these things would be something you could usefully work on with a therapist.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:09 PM on January 10, 2011
That lie is that reason and logic are the greatest human impulses and activities, and that all other human impulses and activities are somehow lesser or unworthy.
This is simply false.
There's a ton of great advice that's been offered here, and I don't have much to add, but the one part that's driving me nuts is all the people saying that Talisman's problem is that he thinks logic is the only way to go, or the most important thing, and that being a human is much more than all of that.
But it is the only way to go, and the most important thing. Even if you're an intensely emotional person with deep convictions, it's by deducing things in a careful way ("if I do this, then that will happen") that you can best bring your hopes and dreams about in the world. That includes making your partner feel happy and understood and connected.
Empathy is a great thing, one of the things that makes life worth living. And like Talisman said, it lets you use the emotions you experience as inputs to your decisions. But in the end, you need to be thinking straight. Rationality is little more than another word for sanity. Just because other peoples' thought processes, and your own, can be messy and nonlinear, doesn't mean you should be the same way when you try to figure out how to deal with that.
Being an analytical, clinical mofo can be an asset. (I hope so—I am one.) When it comes along with repression and a contempt for emotion per se, that's a problem. If Talisman can cultivate his empathy, let become more candid with himself and others about his own emotions, and let himself be happy, then having a rigorously logical thought process is all the better. You don't have to turn your brain to mush to become a better person.
I don't want to start an ontological debate or anything, but I just wanted to represent for the logic camp, 'cause I'm certainly not the only one with this perspective.
posted by abcde at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
This is simply false.
There's a ton of great advice that's been offered here, and I don't have much to add, but the one part that's driving me nuts is all the people saying that Talisman's problem is that he thinks logic is the only way to go, or the most important thing, and that being a human is much more than all of that.
But it is the only way to go, and the most important thing. Even if you're an intensely emotional person with deep convictions, it's by deducing things in a careful way ("if I do this, then that will happen") that you can best bring your hopes and dreams about in the world. That includes making your partner feel happy and understood and connected.
Empathy is a great thing, one of the things that makes life worth living. And like Talisman said, it lets you use the emotions you experience as inputs to your decisions. But in the end, you need to be thinking straight. Rationality is little more than another word for sanity. Just because other peoples' thought processes, and your own, can be messy and nonlinear, doesn't mean you should be the same way when you try to figure out how to deal with that.
Being an analytical, clinical mofo can be an asset. (I hope so—I am one.) When it comes along with repression and a contempt for emotion per se, that's a problem. If Talisman can cultivate his empathy, let become more candid with himself and others about his own emotions, and let himself be happy, then having a rigorously logical thought process is all the better. You don't have to turn your brain to mush to become a better person.
I don't want to start an ontological debate or anything, but I just wanted to represent for the logic camp, 'cause I'm certainly not the only one with this perspective.
posted by abcde at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2011 [4 favorites]
Boy howdy, the guy I thought i was reading at the top of the page is very different than the guy i'm actually reading at the bottom of the page. If I've ever seen someone take so much head-on criticism so well and be willing to start to unpack their personal shit right there in a thread, it hasn't been recently.
I started out feeling extreme antipathy towards you; now I feel a lot of empathy. I'm gonna be bold here, and possibly speak out of turn, and almost certainly project some, but I don't think I'm totally off the mark. I think that, as others have said, it's not that you're insensitive to emotions, you're extremely sensitive to them. I think, actually, that you're terrified of strong emotions. I suspect even that the strong emotions you're most terrified of are your own.
When I had been dating my husband for a couple of years, we developed an extremely toxic fighting pattern. I would calmly and rationally analyze the entire situation. My husband, on the other hand, would rapidly fly off the handle, acting totally irrationally in the face of my entirely justified opprobrium. When I got him into couples counseling, I was really humbled to learn that, in fact, my husband was being genuine and real and honest, while I was carefully avoiding ever saying or doing anything that might reveal any kind of vulnerability. It was awful; I literally said "Um, can we go back to the framing where he was the asshole and I was perfect? I was a lot more comfortable there. . ."
I think that you're afraid of provoking strong emotional responses, either because you grew up around people who were not very good at communicating their emotions effectively and who scared the bejeezus out of Tiny Child Talisman, or because you're terrified of experiencing strong emotions because that seems like a bomb ready to go off. (Or both.) I'm also guessing that the strong emotional responses you're avoiding are ones of anger and extreme sadness; are you bemused by joy? Ecstasy? Laughter?
For me, it was my Really Good Therapist who helped me unpack all that isolating logical whatnot and brought me in line with my ability to feel my own emotions and not be afraid of them. That in turn made it way, way easier for me to handle it when people were angry or sad at me. There are probably other ways to do it than therapy, but you can memail me if you want to know more about the specific modalities my therapist worked in. It was a hard road, but it was an awesome journey and I love being here now. Best of luck; you've honestly done a pretty amazing job just in this thread already.
posted by KathrynT at 3:50 PM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
I started out feeling extreme antipathy towards you; now I feel a lot of empathy. I'm gonna be bold here, and possibly speak out of turn, and almost certainly project some, but I don't think I'm totally off the mark. I think that, as others have said, it's not that you're insensitive to emotions, you're extremely sensitive to them. I think, actually, that you're terrified of strong emotions. I suspect even that the strong emotions you're most terrified of are your own.
When I had been dating my husband for a couple of years, we developed an extremely toxic fighting pattern. I would calmly and rationally analyze the entire situation. My husband, on the other hand, would rapidly fly off the handle, acting totally irrationally in the face of my entirely justified opprobrium. When I got him into couples counseling, I was really humbled to learn that, in fact, my husband was being genuine and real and honest, while I was carefully avoiding ever saying or doing anything that might reveal any kind of vulnerability. It was awful; I literally said "Um, can we go back to the framing where he was the asshole and I was perfect? I was a lot more comfortable there. . ."
I think that you're afraid of provoking strong emotional responses, either because you grew up around people who were not very good at communicating their emotions effectively and who scared the bejeezus out of Tiny Child Talisman, or because you're terrified of experiencing strong emotions because that seems like a bomb ready to go off. (Or both.) I'm also guessing that the strong emotional responses you're avoiding are ones of anger and extreme sadness; are you bemused by joy? Ecstasy? Laughter?
For me, it was my Really Good Therapist who helped me unpack all that isolating logical whatnot and brought me in line with my ability to feel my own emotions and not be afraid of them. That in turn made it way, way easier for me to handle it when people were angry or sad at me. There are probably other ways to do it than therapy, but you can memail me if you want to know more about the specific modalities my therapist worked in. It was a hard road, but it was an awesome journey and I love being here now. Best of luck; you've honestly done a pretty amazing job just in this thread already.
posted by KathrynT at 3:50 PM on January 10, 2011 [8 favorites]
Response by poster: I started out feeling extreme antipathy towards you; now I feel a lot of empathy.
Thanks Kathryn (and others here); your understanding and help mean a lot to me.
If I've ever seen someone take so much head-on criticism so well and be willing to start to unpack their personal shit right there in a thread, it hasn't been recently.
For whatever reason (and in an amazing stroke of luck, because I might otherwise be hopeless!), I find myself particularly able to take criticism and even insults in a constructive manner, without feeling much hurt or anger. Since I consider this to be the "correct" response, I've come to think of myself as very rational. (It's also probably no coincidence that the first stories I conjure to point out others' "irrationality" involve being given advice).
In reality, my lack of a visceral response to criticism is an emotional trait, and it doesn't extrapolate to all areas in my life like I seem to be wishing: I do feel pain when spurned, and in my wish to be rational, force myself to shut up and take it "constructively." That seems to have only ended up alienating me from others' emotions, which is surely not the "correct" response.
There have been several suggestions for things to read in this thread, and I'll give them a look. I'll also memail you to learn about the kinds of therapies you've worked with.
posted by Talisman at 6:12 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
Thanks Kathryn (and others here); your understanding and help mean a lot to me.
If I've ever seen someone take so much head-on criticism so well and be willing to start to unpack their personal shit right there in a thread, it hasn't been recently.
For whatever reason (and in an amazing stroke of luck, because I might otherwise be hopeless!), I find myself particularly able to take criticism and even insults in a constructive manner, without feeling much hurt or anger. Since I consider this to be the "correct" response, I've come to think of myself as very rational. (It's also probably no coincidence that the first stories I conjure to point out others' "irrationality" involve being given advice).
In reality, my lack of a visceral response to criticism is an emotional trait, and it doesn't extrapolate to all areas in my life like I seem to be wishing: I do feel pain when spurned, and in my wish to be rational, force myself to shut up and take it "constructively." That seems to have only ended up alienating me from others' emotions, which is surely not the "correct" response.
There have been several suggestions for things to read in this thread, and I'll give them a look. I'll also memail you to learn about the kinds of therapies you've worked with.
posted by Talisman at 6:12 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
(Psst. Talisman. Hey. This female friend of your sounds like she has a lot more issues than you do. I haven't heard her side, of course, but from what you've laid out the most polite/fun word I can of think to describe her is "mercurial.")
posted by Kloryne at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2011
posted by Kloryne at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2011
You're not a bad person. I don't think you really have known any women intimately, even the ones you've briefly dated and had sex with. It sounds like you'd like that to change.
To get to know something, you need to practice it. To get to know women intimately, you have to work at it. I third the recommendation of Dale Carnegie's HTWFAIP: it is a book that shows you tools that you can use to advance the goal of getting to know women (or any other people, for that matter) very well indeed.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Sockpuppetry at 8:09 PM on January 10, 2011
To get to know something, you need to practice it. To get to know women intimately, you have to work at it. I third the recommendation of Dale Carnegie's HTWFAIP: it is a book that shows you tools that you can use to advance the goal of getting to know women (or any other people, for that matter) very well indeed.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Sockpuppetry at 8:09 PM on January 10, 2011
I think an even more important unspoken rule was broken in the process: you do not yell at well-intentioned friends (unless their behavior was particularly egregious, which I think even she agrees it was not). But I don't hold it against her.
Very generous of you. Are you noticing how many of your responses are feeding into narratives about how patient and calm you are? Maybe you are patient and calm, but look at this example, man. You say she broke an unspoken rule of yelling at well-intentioned friends.
But you've also told us that 1) she wasn't really yelling and 2) you were offering fashion advice despite her explicit request that you not do so.
You aren't winning any points for rationality or honesty here. What are you really trying to get out of this thread?
posted by Marty Marx at 11:52 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Very generous of you. Are you noticing how many of your responses are feeding into narratives about how patient and calm you are? Maybe you are patient and calm, but look at this example, man. You say she broke an unspoken rule of yelling at well-intentioned friends.
But you've also told us that 1) she wasn't really yelling and 2) you were offering fashion advice despite her explicit request that you not do so.
You aren't winning any points for rationality or honesty here. What are you really trying to get out of this thread?
posted by Marty Marx at 11:52 PM on January 10, 2011 [1 favorite]
Count me among the impressed. Your analytical / not-taking-it-personally qualities seem to be serving you well here.
I harbor a fear of having to walk on eggshells in a relationship
My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it
"LobsterMitten: ...maybe you have a lower tolerance for expressions of (let's say) medium-strong emotions than most people do." Bingo, oh, bingo.
I am overwhelmed by people's reactions, but I never blame them. Not even when they treat me badly.
These sentences stood out to me, as not everyone feels this way, along with the fact that you were hooking up with someone mercurial.
I had a parent who, for all their wonderful qualities, was somewhat mercurial, and all of the above describe me (N=1). As a child, emotions sometimes came at me out of seemingly nowhere and my best bet in those moments was to lie low and not be noticed. (I'm not trying to demonize this parent, whom I totally love.)
To stop linking emotions with danger and irrationality in your mind, it might help to protect yourself from people using emotions semi-aggressively ("what's wrong with you??") and to be around people who express strong emotions in ways that are safe.
A good step would be distinguishing good and bad ways of communicating emotions. Non-violent communication and on assertive vs. aggressive communication might be good keywords. Some reading here might help you express your own in good ways and learn to distinguish others' communication styles.
Your instinct to run away from people like your feisty FWB may be something to keep (though developing skills for responding in those key moments will probably make things easier on you). And, not dating robotic people might also be a good idea. (Was she robotic? Or just without an intense volatility you are perhaps used to?) But there are likely a number of women in the middle ground whom you might be missing out on.
posted by salvia at 12:44 AM on January 11, 2011
I harbor a fear of having to walk on eggshells in a relationship
My typical response to emotional outbursts is to walk away. I'm aware that this isn't productive, but don't have a strong desire to overcome it
"LobsterMitten: ...maybe you have a lower tolerance for expressions of (let's say) medium-strong emotions than most people do." Bingo, oh, bingo.
I am overwhelmed by people's reactions, but I never blame them. Not even when they treat me badly.
These sentences stood out to me, as not everyone feels this way, along with the fact that you were hooking up with someone mercurial.
I had a parent who, for all their wonderful qualities, was somewhat mercurial, and all of the above describe me (N=1). As a child, emotions sometimes came at me out of seemingly nowhere and my best bet in those moments was to lie low and not be noticed. (I'm not trying to demonize this parent, whom I totally love.)
To stop linking emotions with danger and irrationality in your mind, it might help to protect yourself from people using emotions semi-aggressively ("what's wrong with you??") and to be around people who express strong emotions in ways that are safe.
A good step would be distinguishing good and bad ways of communicating emotions. Non-violent communication and on assertive vs. aggressive communication might be good keywords. Some reading here might help you express your own in good ways and learn to distinguish others' communication styles.
Your instinct to run away from people like your feisty FWB may be something to keep (though developing skills for responding in those key moments will probably make things easier on you). And, not dating robotic people might also be a good idea. (Was she robotic? Or just without an intense volatility you are perhaps used to?) But there are likely a number of women in the middle ground whom you might be missing out on.
posted by salvia at 12:44 AM on January 11, 2011
I started writing a reply, but there's so much here. I don't want to say the wrong thing. I do want to say that, even though MetaFilter yells out "THERAPY!!!!" over every damn thing, I have never seen anyone who would be more likely to benefit from it than you. Partly because I think you'd need the focussed attention of a trained professional to parse the errors in thinking that have brought you to this point, but also because I think you're exceptionally willing and able to straighten out your thinking.
You know what CBT, the popular therapy du jour, comes from? REBT, which stands for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. Rational AND Emotive. Can't have one without the other, you understand? (I have no professional expertise and I'm not recommending any specific form of therapy, but I do want to make this important point.)
As for stuff like giving out unsolicited advice - something that will bring you immediate help is to get a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behaviour, and start reading her columns while you wait for the book to arrive. In reading these, you will learn how to behave and why. She explains, very humorously and enlighteningly, that when you do X, people feel Y, and that is why you must always/never do X/not-X. She's also remarkably good at either validating (or, where appropriate, correcting) people who "feel like a schmuck" for having their feelings hurt.
The important thing about Miss Manners is that you will understand all the reasons for her rules when you follow them. You will learn by doing.
And I don't know if I buy into the whole ACOA thing and/or whether it applies to you, but a couple of things you said remind me of ACOA-related stuff I've read. It sounds like you are "extremely loyal, even when that loyalty is clearly undeserved". Just to wing an example. So maybe that's a suggestion for further reading, there.
You can do it!
posted by tel3path at 5:07 AM on January 11, 2011
You know what CBT, the popular therapy du jour, comes from? REBT, which stands for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. Rational AND Emotive. Can't have one without the other, you understand? (I have no professional expertise and I'm not recommending any specific form of therapy, but I do want to make this important point.)
As for stuff like giving out unsolicited advice - something that will bring you immediate help is to get a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behaviour, and start reading her columns while you wait for the book to arrive. In reading these, you will learn how to behave and why. She explains, very humorously and enlighteningly, that when you do X, people feel Y, and that is why you must always/never do X/not-X. She's also remarkably good at either validating (or, where appropriate, correcting) people who "feel like a schmuck" for having their feelings hurt.
The important thing about Miss Manners is that you will understand all the reasons for her rules when you follow them. You will learn by doing.
And I don't know if I buy into the whole ACOA thing and/or whether it applies to you, but a couple of things you said remind me of ACOA-related stuff I've read. It sounds like you are "extremely loyal, even when that loyalty is clearly undeserved". Just to wing an example. So maybe that's a suggestion for further reading, there.
You can do it!
posted by tel3path at 5:07 AM on January 11, 2011
If you ever get a chance, you should take one of those in depth communication style tests and compare results with coworkers and friends. You will learn that other people have different ways of expressing themselves and solving problems, and that these are just personal styles and preferences - no one way of communicating is superior to another. Maybe then you'll be able to better understand what is being communicated when your female friends are being seemingly irrational.
As for the rest of it, I kind of think you should just date a whole lot more! Yes, dating is contrived, but its something we all have to do. And no need to feel hemmed in by convention either. Go on a hiking date, a shopping date, play scrabble, whatever - doesn't have to be a boring drink or a painfully long dinner!
Eventually you will meet a girl you really like, and when that happens, think about trying to understand her and figure her out, rather then trying to make sure you respond to her in some kind of "correct" way. The right girl will be totally fascinating to you, and you'll kinda want to do this naturally. (and as for your selectivity on looks - if you like her personality and aren't repelled by her, don't judge your level of attraction until you spend a good evening smooching her. Funny things can happen to our perceptions of attractiveness...)
Finally, be careful that your natural tolerance does not lead you to relationships with abusive people. It seems to me that a danger with you is that you have trouble distinguishing between "normal" emotionality and the crazy. No girl has a right to be mean to you, call you names, or manipulate you with her anger or sadness.
posted by yarly at 7:16 AM on January 11, 2011
As for the rest of it, I kind of think you should just date a whole lot more! Yes, dating is contrived, but its something we all have to do. And no need to feel hemmed in by convention either. Go on a hiking date, a shopping date, play scrabble, whatever - doesn't have to be a boring drink or a painfully long dinner!
Eventually you will meet a girl you really like, and when that happens, think about trying to understand her and figure her out, rather then trying to make sure you respond to her in some kind of "correct" way. The right girl will be totally fascinating to you, and you'll kinda want to do this naturally. (and as for your selectivity on looks - if you like her personality and aren't repelled by her, don't judge your level of attraction until you spend a good evening smooching her. Funny things can happen to our perceptions of attractiveness...)
Finally, be careful that your natural tolerance does not lead you to relationships with abusive people. It seems to me that a danger with you is that you have trouble distinguishing between "normal" emotionality and the crazy. No girl has a right to be mean to you, call you names, or manipulate you with her anger or sadness.
posted by yarly at 7:16 AM on January 11, 2011
Response by poster: Very generous of you. Are you noticing how many of your responses are feeding into narratives about how patient and calm you are?... you've also told us that 1) she wasn't really yelling and 2) you were offering fashion advice despite her explicit request that you not do so.
I didn't figure out that she wasn't yelling until later in the thread. I bet that's not the only time I've misinterpreted emotional expression. Hence leaving slack. (BTW, the "but I don't hold it against her" does sound haughty. It was in response to what I perceive as "you can't blame her" messages. I don't).
As for the explicit request not to, it was given years prior. The reason I mentioned the fear of walking on eggshells bit is because I hadn't considered up until that point that I should be keeping a mental checklist of who gets angered by what. Mostly because I've spent my life aspiring to a more stateless model of "so long as you treat me with basic human decency, I won't take offense". I now see that others don't work that way, and my assumption that they have or should is misplaced.
In the past, manners articles and threads ("what if my in-laws' gift cost X but they said it was Y") only amused me (doesn't matter, just be nice!). But I'm adding Miss Manners to my reading list.
As for therapy: it does sound like a good idea, but I think my insurance won't pay unless I'm diagnosed with something. I really don't like that idea (an official diagnosis on my record), but I'll see if there are other options. I could eat the cost, but I fear I might rush it then.
posted by Talisman at 9:25 AM on January 11, 2011
I didn't figure out that she wasn't yelling until later in the thread. I bet that's not the only time I've misinterpreted emotional expression. Hence leaving slack. (BTW, the "but I don't hold it against her" does sound haughty. It was in response to what I perceive as "you can't blame her" messages. I don't).
As for the explicit request not to, it was given years prior. The reason I mentioned the fear of walking on eggshells bit is because I hadn't considered up until that point that I should be keeping a mental checklist of who gets angered by what. Mostly because I've spent my life aspiring to a more stateless model of "so long as you treat me with basic human decency, I won't take offense". I now see that others don't work that way, and my assumption that they have or should is misplaced.
In the past, manners articles and threads ("what if my in-laws' gift cost X but they said it was Y") only amused me (doesn't matter, just be nice!). But I'm adding Miss Manners to my reading list.
As for therapy: it does sound like a good idea, but I think my insurance won't pay unless I'm diagnosed with something. I really don't like that idea (an official diagnosis on my record), but I'll see if there are other options. I could eat the cost, but I fear I might rush it then.
posted by Talisman at 9:25 AM on January 11, 2011
Response by poster: In rough conclusion:
At some point I decided that the only reasonable responses in life must be as calm and controlled as possible. If I need to use violence (say, to stop a crime), it must be because it's the correct solution, and not because I'm angry/tired/hungry/offended right now.
In trying to hold myself to this standard, I've ended up suppressing some emotions (most notably hurt). By trying to hold others to it, I've developed some crappy expectations of women I might want to date.
Or as nickrussell pointed out very early on:
The illness is that you are terrified to being self-expressive, emotional and engaged with your fellow person. The symptom is that you are terrible with women.
Or Civil_Disobient: People don't want to be with robots. They want to be with other people.
On that note, I've accepted an invite from a lady to go to a happy hour at the sports bar tonight. I'm gonna try some cheering and screaming :)
posted by Talisman at 9:48 AM on January 11, 2011 [3 favorites]
At some point I decided that the only reasonable responses in life must be as calm and controlled as possible. If I need to use violence (say, to stop a crime), it must be because it's the correct solution, and not because I'm angry/tired/hungry/offended right now.
In trying to hold myself to this standard, I've ended up suppressing some emotions (most notably hurt). By trying to hold others to it, I've developed some crappy expectations of women I might want to date.
Or as nickrussell pointed out very early on:
The illness is that you are terrified to being self-expressive, emotional and engaged with your fellow person. The symptom is that you are terrible with women.
Or Civil_Disobient: People don't want to be with robots. They want to be with other people.
On that note, I've accepted an invite from a lady to go to a happy hour at the sports bar tonight. I'm gonna try some cheering and screaming :)
posted by Talisman at 9:48 AM on January 11, 2011 [3 favorites]
I think my insurance won't pay unless I'm diagnosed with something
Just FYI in case you did want the option to be open to you, some insurance companies let you be diagnosed with the psychology-speak equivalent of "trying to adjust to something new in my life" or "being temporarily upset due to something that happened." The companies sometimes will limit the number of sessions under that diagnosis.
posted by salvia at 8:05 PM on January 12, 2011
Just FYI in case you did want the option to be open to you, some insurance companies let you be diagnosed with the psychology-speak equivalent of "trying to adjust to something new in my life" or "being temporarily upset due to something that happened." The companies sometimes will limit the number of sessions under that diagnosis.
posted by salvia at 8:05 PM on January 12, 2011
I don't know if you put much stock into the Myers-Briggs personality types, but I'm an INTP woman, and a lot of things in your post really remind me of myself (er, except the whole thinking that women are irrational part, I guess). I really recommend reading this fantastic description of the INTP type, maybe it will ring true for you.
posted by dialetheia at 10:32 PM on January 12, 2011
posted by dialetheia at 10:32 PM on January 12, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Talisman at 12:04 AM on January 10, 2011