There isn't really a way to address this without sounding new age or at least like some yoga-hippie type, but it has been quite a central theme for me for a while. Positive vs. negative thinking. I've had problems with negativity for ages, and no, contrary to my favorite motto at certain times, it is not realism, it's straight-up pessimism.
I have had a tendency to visualize future a lot, and for some reason, these scenarios always involve stuff I'm worried about and do not want happening. I don't know why, perhaps I feel that if I try to get used to the thought of this bad stuff happening, I sort of numb my mind to it and it won't be so bad? And this very subconsciously, because anyone can see that logic doesn't work irl. Positive attracts positive, and negative likewise, although more like negative repels everything.
It was about a year ago when I finally discovered a piece of advice I found useful, because it conveys the message so clearly there's nothing to decipher, it's all there: think about what you want, don't think about what you don't what. That brought my attention to the fact I had been concentrating a lot on things I didn't want, for no apparent reason. It makes you feel bad and that reflects everything you do, say and are. Which then affects what happens to you and what doesn't.
I remember the times I've had the most fun in my life. Those were times when I was feeling great, a lot was going on and stuff was exciting. I always thought I felt great because of said circumstances, but maybe the way I felt also had something to do with those circumstances even forming in the first place. It might be a chicken and egg type of question, but negativity had no part in it.
Here's the new age part: in a way, I've started believing that what happens to you is often the direct result of what you were expecting and visualizing, deliberately or not. Source: my life.
The rational explanation for this is, simplified, this: if you don't think anything good will happen anyway, you don't bother doing anything to promote it. Therefore, nothing happens. If you think you might win the lottery, you buy a ticket and may or may not win. If you think you won't, you don't buy the ticket and with 100% certainty, don't win the lottery. This was of course a crude simplification but it illustrates the point.
Even while writing this I had to fight off some completely imaginary and speculative negative thoughts that almost had me in their grip for a second, that is how accustomed I am to this way of thinking. This is simply how it goes: whatever you think about, grows bigger in your mind and takes up more space. You can choose to shut the negative stuff out, which makes it diminish. When I first tried it, last summer, everything seemed completely different in a split second. Apparently I wasn't well-trained enough to maintain that mindset, but here's to another try.
24.5.12
11.5.12
Wise up
I'm convinced men who don't like smart women have at least one of the following issues. A) They are not too bright themselves or B) they have low self-esteem.
It is not a myth that some men are "threatened" by intelligent women, just like they are by funny women - since for some curious reason, these are perceived by many people to be masculine traits. If the lady beats you on that front, and you have ego shrinkage problems, you don't want that. You want someone who is clearly below your level in smartness and/or funniness. That is to say, someone reminiscent of a pretty dummy. It's beyond me why anyone would want that, unless of course the reason for dating the person are purely peer/societal pressure or ego-related, and you are not that into all that intellectual challenge and equality.
Then, if you want to have a night out with the guys and your cute but not-too-smart gf raises hell because you never want to be with her instead, ask yourself what went wrong.
This is, thank God, not based on personal experience, but a collection of experiences from other people I have read on different discussion boards.
It is not a myth that some men are "threatened" by intelligent women, just like they are by funny women - since for some curious reason, these are perceived by many people to be masculine traits. If the lady beats you on that front, and you have ego shrinkage problems, you don't want that. You want someone who is clearly below your level in smartness and/or funniness. That is to say, someone reminiscent of a pretty dummy. It's beyond me why anyone would want that, unless of course the reason for dating the person are purely peer/societal pressure or ego-related, and you are not that into all that intellectual challenge and equality.
Then, if you want to have a night out with the guys and your cute but not-too-smart gf raises hell because you never want to be with her instead, ask yourself what went wrong.
This is, thank God, not based on personal experience, but a collection of experiences from other people I have read on different discussion boards.
7.5.12
Interpersonal
Again, I wish I knew more about social psychology so there'd be explanations to all the peculiarities of human interaction. For instance, why is it often that the older you get, the more selective you become about who you choose to spend time with. Is it because your identity has gotten stronger, you know what you like and what you don't, what you're interested in and what you aren't. You recognize more easily when you feel like you're wasting time with bullshit you don't care about.
I've noticed that I have always had the following style of interacting when first getting to know people: at first I strive to be as sociable and talkative as possible, to sort of scan the social environment, be approachable to people and talk to as many of them as possible. Then, after a few weeks, the situation is usually this: I have socially drifted apart and then alienated from 4/5 of the people, and am in the process of making a new best friend in one or two people in the group. So many times in a newly established group of work- or classmates, I wind up looking at them after the first few months and remember how I talked to them a lot in the beginning, what happened? The interaction just sort of stops. I always thought it was them, but it may be me, because let's face it, I never was very interested in those people after the beginning. I guess for me it's quality over quantity in these matters. Especially if I find the kind of person I actually want to get to know, I stop bothering with the rest completely.
I might be a tad too picky with people nowadays, I recall how at about the age 10 you could easily make friends with most of your classmates and hang out all the time. Now I'm lucky if there's 2 people in a group of 20 that I would go out of my way to spend time with. Perhaps there's gems in the rest of them as well, but the small talk jungle you have to go through to get to their person is way too exhausting.
Most conversations I have with strangers fall in the 2 following categories: 1) a) other person likes to talk, and talk, and talk, and mainly about themselves b) other person seems at a loss of what to do, doesn't seem interested in me as does not even ask the politeness questions, which is why in order to avoid awkwardness, I ask them questions out of politeness to the point where it feels like I'm an interviewer with my interviewee, and don't personally give a shit about what they're saying. 2) Other person does not talk about themselves at all, asks me questions out of politeness, so it's just one big monologue where I get the feeling that I'm in the receiving end of some type of social charity and the person doesn't really care.
If I try to find a pattern here, most of the people I cannot relate to didn't study, and the people I find stuff to talk about with did. I guess if you choose to educate yourself in a university, it means you are curious about the world and have interest in discussing topics outside the weather and whatever your personal hobby is.
This is not meant to sound elitist, but just a neutral observation. I suppose you choose uni if none of the other alternatives feel completely right for you, ie. you're not sure what "your thing" is, or there might be several things. Having a job in common provides topics for a limited time, sooner or later you're going to have to talk about something else, and here's where the harsh truth is often revealed. I wonder how the other person perceives the conversation where I'm bored out of my mind, while acting interested. Are they bored too, do they detect the lack of social and intellectual chemistry?
To sum it up, I am increasingly only interested in the company of people who are curious about the world. I can find common ground with almost anyone, but unless most of their interests match mine, there's only so much you can say about a really narrow topic.
I've noticed that I have always had the following style of interacting when first getting to know people: at first I strive to be as sociable and talkative as possible, to sort of scan the social environment, be approachable to people and talk to as many of them as possible. Then, after a few weeks, the situation is usually this: I have socially drifted apart and then alienated from 4/5 of the people, and am in the process of making a new best friend in one or two people in the group. So many times in a newly established group of work- or classmates, I wind up looking at them after the first few months and remember how I talked to them a lot in the beginning, what happened? The interaction just sort of stops. I always thought it was them, but it may be me, because let's face it, I never was very interested in those people after the beginning. I guess for me it's quality over quantity in these matters. Especially if I find the kind of person I actually want to get to know, I stop bothering with the rest completely.
I might be a tad too picky with people nowadays, I recall how at about the age 10 you could easily make friends with most of your classmates and hang out all the time. Now I'm lucky if there's 2 people in a group of 20 that I would go out of my way to spend time with. Perhaps there's gems in the rest of them as well, but the small talk jungle you have to go through to get to their person is way too exhausting.
Most conversations I have with strangers fall in the 2 following categories: 1) a) other person likes to talk, and talk, and talk, and mainly about themselves b) other person seems at a loss of what to do, doesn't seem interested in me as does not even ask the politeness questions, which is why in order to avoid awkwardness, I ask them questions out of politeness to the point where it feels like I'm an interviewer with my interviewee, and don't personally give a shit about what they're saying. 2) Other person does not talk about themselves at all, asks me questions out of politeness, so it's just one big monologue where I get the feeling that I'm in the receiving end of some type of social charity and the person doesn't really care.
If I try to find a pattern here, most of the people I cannot relate to didn't study, and the people I find stuff to talk about with did. I guess if you choose to educate yourself in a university, it means you are curious about the world and have interest in discussing topics outside the weather and whatever your personal hobby is.
This is not meant to sound elitist, but just a neutral observation. I suppose you choose uni if none of the other alternatives feel completely right for you, ie. you're not sure what "your thing" is, or there might be several things. Having a job in common provides topics for a limited time, sooner or later you're going to have to talk about something else, and here's where the harsh truth is often revealed. I wonder how the other person perceives the conversation where I'm bored out of my mind, while acting interested. Are they bored too, do they detect the lack of social and intellectual chemistry?
To sum it up, I am increasingly only interested in the company of people who are curious about the world. I can find common ground with almost anyone, but unless most of their interests match mine, there's only so much you can say about a really narrow topic.
5.5.12
The dreaded zone
Now this is a topic that seems to be all over the place right now, and as I had nothing else to do, I analyzed it a little in my head whilst having my excessive amount of morning coffee. I'm not sure if someone else already said it - most certainly they did - but I didn't read it anywhere.
I think the problem that the friendzoned people have, is that they are too much like the opposite sex. And I'm talking about straight folks here. They often have loads of friends of the opposite sex, they "get" them on a very special level, maybe as a result of growing up in a (fe)male-dominated environment or had loads of (fe)male friends in their childhood. So as for men like these, they make magnificent friends for women; they're emotionally intelligent, sensitive and able to converse. Which covers most of what women want - just not all they want.
Apparently, attraction requires some degree of difference, in order to create that tension, excitement and mystery that is crucial. If the guy is a lot like one's female friends, it's hard to see him in any other light. Same goes for the unfortunate girls who happen to be "good guys", they get friendzoned.
Funny thing is, men and women keep complaining about how the opposite sex consists solely of insensitive, mute jerks, or vain, uptight, irrational hussies. And whenever there's one specimen that doesn't fit the stereotype at all, "sorry but I just see you as a friend". Humans are masochists; or maybe just like the poles of magnets, they need to be the opposites to attract each other. Simple as that. Of course, that's only the beginning: for things to go even relatively smoothly in the long run, there needs to be more in common than there is different. And often there isn't, and ergo the eternal war that so many engage in, voluntarily.
One thing I also wonder is if it's really true that the majority of the friendzone victims are males. This would basically mean that almost any given single straight male will say yes to any of their single straight female friends, should they suggest. Is this true? Are men really that simple and unselective when it comes to choosing a partner, desperate even? It also sounds like their view on women is very one-dimensional as they cannot perceive someone of the female sex to be suitable as just a real friend. If they can't get a date out of it or at least laid, better not bother at all, but to just vanish in all quietness. This actually happens, I have seen it.
As someone who has friendzoned at least one person (that I know of), I can't tell if it's something they do or just something they are. But in case of the former, what I suggest is to try and be moderately assertive, firm and determined handling the situation where you're interested. Babbling and beating around the bush, flirting between the lines is a mistake while trying to avoid the friendzone, because that is effeminate. Being effeminate does not work well on straight females. You don't have to be a brainless, senseless macho, unlike a lot of bitter friendzoned guys complain, just don't be like a girl.
Things are not really that simple, but sometimes generalization is necessary.
// A small specification: someone pointed out that being friendzoned almost without exception means that you're simply in some way unattractive to the other person. That is definitely true. It can be the femininity, or it can be some little thing about the physical appearance. It often is the latter, no matter how much we'd like to tell ourselves we're not superficial like that. Looks may not be the main thing, but sometimes it is the dealbreaker. And then, even an awesome personality will only get you to the friend level where you get stuck. Happens to both sexes.
Now all this made me wonder why this whole thing is treated like some newly found phenomenon, when in fact it's just the good old "you're not my type". because that's what it's about.
I think the problem that the friendzoned people have, is that they are too much like the opposite sex. And I'm talking about straight folks here. They often have loads of friends of the opposite sex, they "get" them on a very special level, maybe as a result of growing up in a (fe)male-dominated environment or had loads of (fe)male friends in their childhood. So as for men like these, they make magnificent friends for women; they're emotionally intelligent, sensitive and able to converse. Which covers most of what women want - just not all they want.
Apparently, attraction requires some degree of difference, in order to create that tension, excitement and mystery that is crucial. If the guy is a lot like one's female friends, it's hard to see him in any other light. Same goes for the unfortunate girls who happen to be "good guys", they get friendzoned.
Funny thing is, men and women keep complaining about how the opposite sex consists solely of insensitive, mute jerks, or vain, uptight, irrational hussies. And whenever there's one specimen that doesn't fit the stereotype at all, "sorry but I just see you as a friend". Humans are masochists; or maybe just like the poles of magnets, they need to be the opposites to attract each other. Simple as that. Of course, that's only the beginning: for things to go even relatively smoothly in the long run, there needs to be more in common than there is different. And often there isn't, and ergo the eternal war that so many engage in, voluntarily.
One thing I also wonder is if it's really true that the majority of the friendzone victims are males. This would basically mean that almost any given single straight male will say yes to any of their single straight female friends, should they suggest. Is this true? Are men really that simple and unselective when it comes to choosing a partner, desperate even? It also sounds like their view on women is very one-dimensional as they cannot perceive someone of the female sex to be suitable as just a real friend. If they can't get a date out of it or at least laid, better not bother at all, but to just vanish in all quietness. This actually happens, I have seen it.
As someone who has friendzoned at least one person (that I know of), I can't tell if it's something they do or just something they are. But in case of the former, what I suggest is to try and be moderately assertive, firm and determined handling the situation where you're interested. Babbling and beating around the bush, flirting between the lines is a mistake while trying to avoid the friendzone, because that is effeminate. Being effeminate does not work well on straight females. You don't have to be a brainless, senseless macho, unlike a lot of bitter friendzoned guys complain, just don't be like a girl.
Things are not really that simple, but sometimes generalization is necessary.
// A small specification: someone pointed out that being friendzoned almost without exception means that you're simply in some way unattractive to the other person. That is definitely true. It can be the femininity, or it can be some little thing about the physical appearance. It often is the latter, no matter how much we'd like to tell ourselves we're not superficial like that. Looks may not be the main thing, but sometimes it is the dealbreaker. And then, even an awesome personality will only get you to the friend level where you get stuck. Happens to both sexes.
Now all this made me wonder why this whole thing is treated like some newly found phenomenon, when in fact it's just the good old "you're not my type". because that's what it's about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)