So You’re Not Desirable
nytimes.com
So You’re Not Desirable
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#2I definitely know some unique folks, and that does really seem to work for them in romantic settings. Like those other qualities -- wealth, attractiveness, power -- only a few can be the "most" unique. Maybe it's cynical, but I guess that most people aren't that exceptional, and that's OK.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#3I definitely know some unique folks, and that does really seem to work for them in romantic settings. Like those other qualities -- wealth, attractiveness, power -- only a few can be the "most" unique. Maybe it's cynical, but I guess that most people aren't that exceptional, and that's OK .
I think you missed the meaning of what the author was calling uniqueness. From my reading of the article, I took it to mean that each person likes potential mates in a unique way, but that this only comes out after a little while.
For example, if you asked a group of men to rate women they did not know on a scale of 1-10, you would get largely the same answers from all of them about each particular female. However, since each of these men is "unique," if you asked them that same question after they had just all spent 3 months together (the men and women), the numbers will now be more muddled.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#4>In a related study of approximately 350 heterosexual individuals, we collected these same measures in networks of opposite-sex friends, acquaintances and partners. Among these well-acquainted individuals, consensus on measures of mate value was nearly zero. These are the people who know what authors you like, what you wore for Halloween six years ago and what obscure movie you will quote the next time you all get together. But they cannot agree on your mate value. Over the years, it has evaporated before their eyes.
I'm curious if this is the cause of the so-called "friend zone". A guy and a girl meet and become friends. After getting to know each other, the guy still thinks the girl has mate value, whereas the girl doesn't think the guy has mate value.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#5I remember during my first year at college looking through a friend's high school yearbook remarking on some of the girls I thought were cute but he didn't. He made comments that didn't have to do with their physical appearance - like "she was mean" or "she was rude". When he looked through my yearbook the same thing happened, we just switched sides. I thought it was interesting how knowing the person actually changed the assessment of how physically attractive someone was. Not overwhelmingly so but definitely enough to notice.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#6> One recent study of a representative sample of adolescents found that only 6 percent reported that they and their partners formed a romantic relationship soon after meeting.
> It seems most likely that it is the consensually desirable people who pull off the rare feat of quickly leveraging an initial positive impression into romance, while a vast majority of us get to know our romantic partners slowly, gradually, over time.
I think anyone can learn how to do this.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#7>In a related study of approximately 350 heterosexual individuals, we collected these same measures in networks of opposite-sex friends, acquaintances and partners. Among these well-acquainted individuals, consensus on measures of mate value was nearly zero. These are the people who know what authors you like, what you wore for Halloween six years ago and what obscure movie you will quote the next time you all get to…
I always hated the term "friend zone" because I think it's really as simple as you have just described. One person likes the other and the feeling isn't reciprocated. It's unrequited love. The friendship part makes things more painful and complicated but I don't think it has any bearing on why the person isn't attracted to the other.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#8>>All you need is for others to have the patience to get to know you, and a more level playing field should follow.
And a different career than engineering, so you can find more time and possibility of meeting possible mates at work.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#9> One recent study of a representative sample of adolescents found that only 6 percent reported that they and their partners formed a romantic relationship soon after meeting. > It seems most likely that it is the consensually desirable people who pull off the rare feat of quickly leveraging an initial positive impression into romance, while a vast majority of us get to know our romantic partners slowly, gradually, o…
And the trick is called "lowering standards". While attractive people surely have everything easier, I suspect the difference the study found is due to men seeking different things from "short" and long relationships.
Re: So You’re Not Desirable
#10I definitely know some unique folks, and that does really seem to work for them in romantic settings. Like those other qualities -- wealth, attractiveness, power -- only a few can be the "most" unique. Maybe it's cynical, but I guess that most people aren't that exceptional, and that's OK .
I think you missed the meaning of what the author was calling uniqueness. From my reading of the article, I took it to mean that each person likes potential mates in a unique way, but that this only comes out after a little while. For example, if you asked a group of men to rate women they did not know on a scale of 1-10, you would get largely the same answers from all of them about each particular female. However, s…
Hrm. I would guess that effect tends to result from people associating generally with other folks in the same social tier. Like, to side step wealth entirely, let's say you're someone who values physical fitness. You will generally hang out with other folks who value physical fitness. When asked to rate the people around you of the gender you're attracted to, you'll reply by finding the differentiating features, and going from there. But, since you've self-selected your social circle, they'll all tend to have values that you find important. (The undergraduate studies the author speaks of are limiting for the same reason.) So when you've selected people in whom you are relatively more interested, you'll magnify the importance of the unique things about them that you like, but those unique things aren't exactly what made the two of you compatible in the first place.
Put another way, I'd be surprised if this finding still held true if you took a a random hundred people from the general populace and put them in a dome. I predict you'd see "mate value" very clearly delineated in the pairings up that resulted.
I'm not arguing that uniqueness isn't a factor. Maybe I am just nitpicking here -- it's unclear whether the author intended to convey that uniqueness was one factor among many, or an overriding factor. If the former, then my posts here have probably not been useful, but if the latter, I doubt it.