Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

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

#111

Post by NumberCruncher »

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 it is easier to come up with dozens of arguments for texting than having the balls to ask someone out on the phone.

>> This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your texting, cowardly competitors.

True words.

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

#112

Post by Strom »

golemotron wrote: post #17
pm90 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a rather profound observation. Perhaps the Geek subculture's disdain of the principles of social interaction is because we often try to make sense of it rationally.

I think that's true. But we're at the tip of a large iceberg. In general people want to believe that they are in control of their emotions and choices, and that they are rational. The more you learn about psychology and neurology the more you realize how much of a conceit that is. It changes your perspective dramatically. Read about Libet's experiments, sales techniques, anchoring, all that. Or meditate for a while a…

A good example of no control is addiction. A person can do something that they're addictied to, while their rational brain is yelling "no! no! no!" at the same time, perhaps even vocalizing it, but you still perform the addictive action. The more clever individuals may overcome this by planning their defense way ahead, e.g. by completely changing their environment or using other tricks to manipulate their more automatic brain parts. However most people seem to need external help with overcoming addiction, even if they're aware of the problem and want to solve it.

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

#113

Post by pdabbadabba »

noobermin wrote: post #104
herbig wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

"Score" is a term for successfully attracting a mate. It is not a power struggle per se but dating is a negotiation of sorts in order to reach a consensus about the nature of an interpersonal relationship between two individuals. In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.

"Score" is one thing. "Score something" is, to me, much worse. I don't mind if guys want to speak casually among friends about women as conquests. But it strikes me as disconcerting that there are people who find this way of speaking so unobjectionable that they'd use it on a public forum like hacker news where, I had thought, the general expectation is that the discourse will maintain a certain level of quality and, needless to say, women are supposed to feel welcome and appreciated for their intellectual contributions.

What's even more disconcerting is that the comment that used this expression has been voted to the top (though it is otherwise a very good comment), and comments taking issue with the sexist language are voted into oblivion (so far).

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

#114

Post by gelraen »

cableshaft wrote: post #89
gelraen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that it's hard to build healthy relationship when you're _not_ okay being single. Needing a relationship to feel okay sets the ground for developing codependency, which hurts everyone involved. Also, when you're actively looking for someone to have relationship with you look desperate, which scares people off. (Not to mention that having relationship itself as a goal, as opposed to wanting to build a re…

While I mostly agree with you, if someone acts like they don't want a relationship at all (or plays super hard to get), then I'll just move on to someone who does, because I don't have time to waste trying to get someone interested in me. I wasted way too much time on women who were friendly but emotionally unavailable (and didn't want to admit it to themselves) in my teens and 20s to ever want to go through that aga…

> While I mostly agree with you, if someone acts like they don't want a relationship at all (or plays super hard to get), then I'll just move on to someone who does, because I don't have time to waste trying to get someone interested in me.

I didn't say that you should hide your interest in relationship to get it. I only said that pursuing something you imagine word "relationship" means, instead of paying attention to particular person, will not do any good for you.

In my opinion, if you like someone – say so, if you want to engage in some activity with the person – tell them so. If they reciprocate – good for both of you, if not – get over it and move on.

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

#115

Post by herbig »

lighttower wrote: post #110
herbig wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response b…

I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment.

People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.

If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

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

#116

Post by herbig »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #113
noobermin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Score" is a term for successfully attracting a mate. It is not a power struggle per se but dating is a negotiation of sorts in order to reach a consensus about the nature of an interpersonal relationship between two individuals. In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.

"Score" is one thing. "Score something " is, to me, much worse. I don't mind if guys want to speak casually among friends about women as conquests. But it strikes me as disconcerting that there are people who find this way of speaking so unobjectionable that they'd use it on a public forum like hacker news where, I had thought, the general expectation is that the discourse will maintain a certain level of quality and…

Yes. This exactly.

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

#117

Post by lighttower »

herbig wrote: post #100
jameshart wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"score something"? Really?

The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.

> The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.

It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.

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

#118

Post by jmilloy »

herbig wrote: post #87
pmarreck wrote: post #75

So TL;DR: Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio Reinforcement Schedule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement ) kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most drama. I get that about right? ;) Word to the wise (s…

The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

Then again, you used the term "insane" inappropriately. To a certain extent, you have to accept some slang during discussion. And, in addition to the fact that power is a core concept in sociology, what dating dynamics are "meant to be" (whatever that means) doesn't really matter.

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

#120

Post by analyst74 »

pmarreck wrote: post #75

So TL;DR: Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio Reinforcement Schedule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement ) kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most drama. I get that about right? ;) Word to the wise (s…

> Online dating apps put much more power into the hands of women than men.

No, online dating puts more power into the hands of beautiful/photogenic people than in real life, that includes men.

Post reply on HN