She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not • Hacker News Board

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#31

Post by stuxnet79 » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

DocG wrote: post #16

alias240 wrote: post #8

My strategy when I meet a girl I like is to exchange numbers, but have no intention of contacting them. The girl always has to contact the guy first. It's just how it works.

>The girl always has to contact the guy first. It's just how it works That seems a bit childish.

Not only that, it seems like an ineffective strategy. I can't imagine you'd get more than a 10% response rate from this - and that's if you are exceedingly attractive. If you are just an average joe, this strategy basically does not work. If I had enough things going on in my life though I'd also always wait for the woman to contact me first because I've been used and manipulated too many times and don't see most women as worth the effort.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#32

Post by pc86 » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

rtl49 wrote: post #15

Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense? It doesn't eliminate the wiles and ways by which we seek to gain the upper hand in a sapling relationship, but it does introduce a touch of humanity into the exchange which, in addition to being consoling, reduces wasted time and useless stress. A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest. Is the other party still interested? If…

> Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense?

Because if you're trying to take out a 20-something that you've only had passing interaction with, texting is the socially acceptable way to do it. You don't just call.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#33

Post by rtl49 » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #32

rtl49 wrote: post #15

Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense? It doesn't eliminate the wiles and ways by which we seek to gain the upper hand in a sapling relationship, but it does introduce a touch of humanity into the exchange which, in addition to being consoling, reduces wasted time and useless stress. A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest. Is the other party still interested? If…

> Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense? Because if you're trying to take out a 20-something that you've only had passing interaction with, texting is the socially acceptable way to do it. You don't just call.

As such a 20-something, I can attest that this is not universally true.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#34

Post by the_af » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #10

The best time to search for funding is when you don't need it. The best time to search for a job is when you don't need it. The best time to search for a partner is when you don't need it. I got my current girlfriends after two years of being single and realizing that being single is okay.

Do your current girlfriends know about each other? :P

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#35

Post by thomasahle » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #11

donquichotte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, doubling response time every time is essentially exponential backoff, a strategy I mainly use when trying to let an uncomfortable discussion die gracefully.

I think HN uses a variant of that to prevent long back-and-forth discussions.

You mean, if HN detects a long back-forth, it'll not show your post to anyone for a while after you've submitted it?

That's quite interesting. Is this used anywhere else on the web?

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#36

Post by philh » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

stuxnet79 wrote: post #29

rtl49 wrote: post #21

I've read a few comments deriding the complexity of this analysis. However, I think it is worth identifying it as a fact that, noticed or not, there is something of a power struggle in the early stages of the human courtship ritual. Here, this issue is that of availability. Given that it is sometimes difficult to gauge the desirability of a prospective partner, one metric is how eager they seem to be. If the other re…

I used to respond immediately because I'm not a fan of playing games but now I never do, mostly because nobody else does it either. But that is only when I text. I NEVER text these days. I'd rather call. I'm impatient and I'd rather have a short quick conversation than one uncomfortable one that stretches over days. You can easily spot the fakers from the ones who are actually unavailable though. My ex before we brok…

> My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was unemployed and had nothing going in her life

Not to speak of your ex specifically. But this could just be a case of "shitty at replying to texts", which I also have (in relation to my mother and some of my friends, but not to other friends or my girlfriend). It's not necessarily about being a faker.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#37

Post by the_af » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #22

There were many things wrong with how Aziz approached the situation. Firstly, he should NOT have invited her to a big concert right away: concerts/events are a big commitment, time and attention-wise. If he had just met the person, the best thing to do would probably have been to meet for coffee/drinks, get to know each other better and THEN propose going to the concert IN PERSON. Secondly, there are a lot of factors…

I disagree that there was anything wrong about Aziz's approach. In fact, the concert thing likely didn't play any role (read the afterwords). Sometimes these things work. Sometimes they don't. This isn't math; there is no surefire formula.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#38

Post by jacques_chester » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

My experience is: If you have to use tactics, it won't work in the long run.

And if you think it's smart to deliberately model yourself on a neglectful, mildly sociopathic personality, shame on you.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#39

Post by mhb » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

I realize that this is an inquiry from another era, but people find it acceptable that other people know when they have read a text? Isn't that pretty intrusive?

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#40

Post by the_af » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

gelraen wrote: post #19

golemotron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that attraction is rational and a matter of choice. Think about it. Isn't the world is wonderful because it isn't?

Attraction sometimes is not a matter of choice, but actions are. You can decide to continue communication with someone or not. You're not a slave of your attraction.

Actions are a matter of choice, and I agree it's best not to be a jerk. I don't like jerks.

However, I think you're missing the point: you can play nice (answer texts immediately) but you cannot avoid the irrational reaction of finding someone who immediately answers back less attractive (or whatever; if this isn't something you experience, substitute with whatever other irrational dating behaviors you do experience -- maybe you like cute smiles, maybe you dislike loud laughter that sounds like snorting).

Attraction is not rational. You cannot force yourself (or others) to be rational about it. You can choose to play nice, but you cannot choose to feel attracted to someone. Attraction and romance are games with bizarre rules, whether we like it or not.