# Desperation shouldn't be a turn off on the first place



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

I read how people on this board talk as to how they can try and hide their social anxiety. But here is a better question: why should it be something to hide on the first place? Why can't girls actually CHOOSE socially anxious guy over the confident one? Apart from the fact that socially anxious guy is in much more desperate need for female attention (when I was confident back in high school I didn't even care about girls I did just fine without them) the womans love would be reciprocated a lot more as well. 

Now when I asked similar questions on other posts, I been told "well, all other factors being equal, would you date an overweight girl over a skinny one because of her need of approval?" Okay, first of all let me make it clear that, unlike most guys, for me personality, education, and interests matter a lot more than looks. But, since you are asking me "all other factors being equal", in the imaginary case of the two girls having identical education, identical moral values, identical personality, yeah I would choose the skinny one. But in this case the overweight girls wouldn't be in such a huge disadvantage because they can compensate by other things I just listed. 

And by the way I am not in a good physical shape either: most girls want physically strong guys and I am not. But you haven't seen a single post from me where I complained about not being physically strong. Why? Because I simply don't think that this is the main thing that keeps me single. Similarly I don't think girls being overweight would keep them single either. In both cases it might make the number of options smaller, but so what? I am not talking about number of options being smaller. I am talking about a situation where I am completely single and no one likes me at all. And I simply don't think that physical shape is to blame for this, whether that be man being weak or woman being overweight. Yes I seen posts by the guys that were complaining about being short, and I was rolling my eyes every time I seen it. I think their problem is personality, not height. 

Anyway, here is a better comparison. If all other factors are equal, and I have to choose between desperate girl and the confident one, then I would choose the desperate one. In fact it already happened: in one of my two year relationship the second year of it I didn't like her at all (she was too bossy) but I stayed with her out of pity. So here you go. But I guess its not the best example: after all if a girl doesn't like me and only stays with me out of pity that won't solve my self esteem problem anyway. But you see, like I said, what I didn't like about that girl was NOT the fact that she was desperate but the fact that she was bossy. Her being bossy is what pushed me away, and her being lonely and desperate is what made me want to stay. So if I were to take a different example where a girl is NOT bossy but ONLY lonely and desperate, then yes I would totally choose her over her confident counterpart.

Now you might want to say that I am being sexist because a non-bossy girl who is lonely and desperate is the one that is easily controlled. Well no I am not. Because I am in the same shoes as her: I am non-bossy and I am lonely and desperate. So I don't think either partner should control the other partner. Rather I think that two lonely and desperate people bonding in order to help each other with self esteem issues is the perfect thing to bond over. I just don't understand why others don't see it this way. Others say you have to love yourself before loving anyone else. But I think if you take two people who don't love themselves trying to make each other a company that would be a perfect recipy for them falling in love with each other, far deeper love than anything normal people experience.


----------



## littleghost (Oct 29, 2016)

I think people sense desperation and think someone will be needy and clingy. Most people don't like needy and clingy. It sort of relates to the fact that a guy in a relationship gets hit on more than a single guy. I've seen that mentioned in posts and on TV. He has a girlfriend, is no long desperate, and is more confident. This makes him more attractive to girls.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

causalset said:


> I read how people on this board talk as to how they can try and hide their social anxiety. But here is a better question: why should it be something to hide on the first place? Why can't girls actually CHOOSE socially anxious guy over the confident one?


 Did it ever occur to you that it might be because there are a lot of disadvantages to such a relationship?

Let's say (for example) that you put up an ad for a room mate and a homeless person wants to move in with you without paying any of the bills. Now of course you just know that's not gonna work out. You're not a mean person. It doesn't mean you hate homeless people. You just don't have the resources or the desire to support someone who can't support themselves.

A lot of women don't even really want to be in the position where they have to say no because, well.....it's really, really awkward and uncomfortable. And it might even be dangerous in some cases if the guy takes it super personal the way a lot of guys seem to. It just seems like there's not really a nice way to say no to someone who is going to be offended by it no matter how you say it. No one wants to be made to feel like they're being rude and mean.

Desperation might be unattractive because it makes people wonder what's going to happen if things don't work out. It indicates a high maintenance personality type. Relationships often need to be more balanced.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

littleghost said:


> I think people sense desperation and think someone will be needy and clingy. Most people don't like needy and clingy.


Why not? Isn't needy and clingy the exact ingredients of the deep love? Why don't they want to feel needed rather than to feel like they are the third wheel or something?



littleghost said:


> It sort of relates to the fact that a guy in a relationship gets hit on more than a single guy.


And this proves my point. What would hitting on a guy who is in a relationship lead to? In best case scenario not much, in worst case scenario a lot of drama. And what does hitting on a single guy lead to? Possibly relationship! And in the same manner, if you take two single guys, hitting on the lonely one would be appreciated, and reciprocated, a lot more than hitting on the confident one. Yet girls don't seem to get it.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

How many women have you actually went and talked to?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Let's say (for example) that you put up an ad for a room mate and a homeless person wants to move in with you without paying any of the bills. Now of course you just know that's not gonna work out. You're not a mean person. It doesn't mean you hate homeless people. You just don't have the resources or the desire to support someone who can't support themselves.


The main reason I wouldn't want a homeless move in is that who knows what kind of diseases he would infect my room with. As far as paying his bills, he can't force me to pay his bills. I don't see why, in order to refuse to pay his bills, I have to refuse him from moving in too. Why can't there be a middle option, such as "you are welcome to move in, but I won't pay your bills, so if you don't pay your own bills, that would be between you and the house administration".

And in the same fashion as far as relationship, the girl doesn't have to assume that she has to EITHER satisfy ALL of my needs (which would be over her head) OR none at all. Why can't she satisfy SOME of my emotional needs, and then if other needs are left unsatisfied well she still did better than nothing? I mean, I admit that when I had girlfriends I weren't completely happy person either: so they were right they can't make me 100% happy; but that didn't change the fact that I was happ-IER than I am when i am single. So doesn't making me happ-IER worth something? Why do they think they have to either make me completely happy or totally ignore me? I actually had an example of a girl who actually said when she was breaking up with me "do you realize that I want you to be happy" and I asked her this same exact question which she refused to answer.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> How many women have you actually went and talked to?


Few times a year I gather courage to do it: typically I overhear a conversation and say "what did you mean by such and such" but then they pretend not to hear me. I don't know if its because I appear unlikable or because this is not the time to approach and I should approach in a different way.

But still I admit that was only few times a year. Mostly I wait for girls to approach. But apparently girls do approach, as evident by what littleghost said



littleghost said:


> It sort of relates to the fact that a guy in a relationship *gets hit on* more than a single guy.


----------



## littleghost (Oct 29, 2016)

causalset said:


> Why not? Isn't needy and clingy the exact ingredients of the deep love? Why don't they want to feel needed rather than to feel like they are the third wheel or something?


There's a fine line between needing someone and being needy. And it probably is different for different people. But, say a guy always wants to do everything with his girlfriend, and talks bad about himself because he wants his girlfriend to say good things about him, and gets moody when the gf is out with her friends... there are a lot of little things that could annoy a person if they happen all the time. People should be able to love each other and still have their own separate lives with their own interests and platonic relationships.



> And this proves my point. What would hitting on a guy who is in a relationship lead to?


I meant that they get hit on by girls who don't realize they're in a relationship. Unless a guy is married and wears a ring, a girl may not realize he's in a relationship. Girls who hit on guys they know are in a relationship...I agree with you, that's messed up and only leads to trouble.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

What do people get from these threads? Yes you're frustrated, but noone is suddenly gonna become attracted to desperation. You can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not attracted to. On this board so many blame society, girls, looks, height everyone and everything because they feel powerless. If you had a girlfriend you'd still feel like ****. Wherever you go there you are. 

Put the focus on feeling better about yourself. Meds, therapy, work, school, hobbies, get your life together and then you'll be attractive to someone else. If you try 1 thing and it doesn't work try another. Try 10 or 20 don't give up on yourself. It's hard work to get better, but focusing on yourself and seeking the help you need is the only way. Otherwise you'll be on this board at 70 still complaining that people should change for you when you won't put the effort to change yourself. 

I'm sorry but I specifically decided to allow myself one blunt post. Noone is gonna change for you. You put all that energy thinking about other people into working on yourself. Social anxiety isn't fair. None of us deserve this. But it's our responsibility as adults to do what we can to create a better life for ourselves. Thems the cards kids. Take it or leave it. Or keep complaining about **** that will never happen. And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


----------



## littleghost (Oct 29, 2016)

realisticandhopeful said:


> What do people get from these threads? Yes you're frustrated, but noone is suddenly gonna become attracted to desperation. You can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not attracted to. On this board so many blame society, girls, looks, height everyone and everything because they feel powerless. If you had a girlfriend you'd still feel like ****. Wherever you go there you are.
> 
> Put the focus on feeling better about yourself. Meds, therapy, work, school, hobbies, get your life together and then you'll be attractive to someone else. If you try 1 thing and it doesn't work try another. Try 10 or 20 don't give up on yourself. It's hard work to get better, but focusing on yourself and seeking the help you need is the only way. Otherwise you'll be on this board at 70 still complaining that people should change for you when you won't put the effort to change yourself.
> 
> I'm sorry but I specifically decided to allow myself one blunt post. Noone is gonna change for you. You put all that energy thinking about other people into working on yourself. Social anxiety isn't fair. None of us deserve this. But it's our responsibility as adults to do what we can to create a better life for ourselves. Thems the cards kids. Take it or leave it. Or keep complaining about **** that will never happen. And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


Thanks for saying that. Someone needed to.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

realisticandhopeful said:


> And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


Okay I will listen to your advice. The only problem is time frame. I am already 37. How long will it take me to improve myself? By the way someone on a different message board once said "its been 4 months since you made this thread, is your life any better?" Okay so do you think I can realistically change my situation in 4 months? If so, I would totally do it. I just have a sense it would take years not months, thats why I am so upset.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> Okay I will listen to your advice. The only problem is time frame. I am already 37. How long will it take me to improve myself? By the way someone on a different message board once said "its been 4 months since you made this thread, is your life any better?" Okay so do you think I can realistically change my situation in 4 months? If so, I would totally do it. I just have a sense it would take years not months, thats why I am so upset.


The time is going to pass anyway so do whatever it takes to improve your situation, whether that be seeing a psychiatrist, moving to a new city, pursuing a new career, or whatever. As long as you persist you'll get there.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

just be aware that a desperate person also means that that person can be more likely to be unfaithful and disrespectful to you. Combine desperation with selfishness, and you have the perfect recipe for being lead astray and having your time wasted. I have direct experience of this from a woman i should never have trusted, who managed to pull the wool over my eyes for about 2.5 years. 

be very careful with the desperate ones, they can also be horribly jealous and inconsiderate.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

causalset said:


> I read how people on this board talk as to how they can try and hide their social anxiety. But here is a better question: why should it be something to hide on the first place? *Why can't girls actually CHOOSE socially anxious guy over the confident one?* Apart from the fact that socially anxious guy is in much more desperate need for female attention (when I was confident back in high school I didn't even care about girls I did just fine without them) the womans love would be reciprocated a lot more as well.


Hi. Well, because it's not a choice who you are attracted to. Confident PEOPLE are always attractive, in general, to other people. So then, what are you saying? Be less attracted to the unconfident person, and choose them anyway? Hm. Then next what would the argument be? "Don't lie about being attracted to us" or..? Just a thought.



causalset said:


> Now when I asked similar questions on other posts, I been told "well, all other factors being equal, would you date an overweight girl over a skinny one because of her need of approval?" Okay, first of all let me make it clear that, unlike most guys, for me personality, education, and interests matter a lot more than looks. But, since you are asking me "all other factors being equal", in the imaginary case of the two girls having identical education, identical moral values, identical personality, yeah I would choose the skinny one. But in this case the overweight girls wouldn't be in such a huge disadvantage because they can compensate by other things I just listed.


Well fine, good for you. Realize that most people do not have this preference, though. For some, education doesn't matter at all. For some, interests don't either - complete opposites end up being together. For most people, it's usually personality and looks. Personality can, of course, make someone physically appear more attractive. Hence confident people (a personality trait) = being the upperhand, in those peoples' cases, instead of looks. Some people (NOT ALL) would find that an overweight person, in fact, is a dealbreaker - and that's perfectly alright. It's natural. I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker for me, but ideally, if I'm going to get sexual with someone... fat is absolutely NOT going to do it for me. It's just not.



causalset said:


> And by the way I am not in a good physical shape either: most girls want physically strong guys and I am not. But you haven't seen a single post from me where I complained about not being physically strong. Why? Because I simply don't think that this is the main thing that keeps me single. Similarly I don't think girls being overweight would keep them single either. In both cases it might make the number of options smaller, but so what?


Yes I agree with this, you are correct. People of all body types do find romantic partners.



causalset said:


> I am not talking about number of options being smaller. I am talking about a situation where I am completely single and no one likes me at all. And I simply don't think that physical shape is to blame for this, whether that be man being weak or woman being overweight. Yes I seen posts by the guys that were complaining about being short, and I was rolling my eyes every time I seen it. I think their problem is personality, not height.


Agreed.



causalset said:


> Anyway, here is a better comparison. If all other factors are equal, and I have to choose between desperate girl and the confident one, then I would choose the desperate one. In fact it already happened: in one of my two year relationship the second year of it I didn't like her at all (she was too bossy) but I stayed with her out of pity. So here you go. But I guess its not the best example: after all if a girl doesn't like me and only stays with me out of pity that won't solve my self esteem problem anyway. But you see, like I said, what I didn't like about that girl was NOT the fact that she was desperate but the fact that she was bossy. Her being bossy is what pushed me away, and her being lonely and desperate is what made me want to stay. So if I were to take a different example where a girl is NOT bossy but ONLY lonely and desperate, then yes I would totally choose her over her confident counterpart.


Well, being confident doesn't inherently mean being bossy. I see what you mean, though. That in order to be bossy, some sort of gut is required, even if the people themselves aren't very _self_-confident. Which, honestly, it didn't sound like she was very confident about herself. If she felt lonely and desperate.



causalset said:


> Now you might want to say that I am being sexist because a non-bossy girl who is lonely and desperate is the one that is easily controlled. Well no I am not. Because I am in the same shoes as her: I am non-bossy and I am lonely and desperate. So I don't think either partner should control the other partner. Rather I think that two lonely and desperate people bonding in order to help each other with self esteem issues is the perfect thing to bond over. I just don't understand why others don't see it this way. Others say you have to love yourself before loving anyone else. But I think if you take two people who don't love themselves trying to make each other a company that would be a perfect recipy for them falling in love with each other, far deeper love than anything normal people experience.


That's okay. My mind didn't go there. I see it as you put it, you being in the same shoes as her. Anyway this entire time I was probably telling you things you already know. And you probably meant this more as just a rant. Uh... overall, decent ideas in theory, but nature is not going to change. To be attracted to a person requires some pros, where there are cons. If you're just a desperate, socially anxious, unconfident person, there's gotta be more to you than that. Sorry.

Btw, super desperate clingyness to one person is absolutely not the perfect thing for a relationship. No way.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> The time is going to pass anyway so do whatever it takes to improve your situation, whether that be seeing a psychiatrist, moving to a new city, pursuing a new career, or whatever. As long as you persist you'll get there.


New career is out: I want to be a physicist, thats my life time goal.

I guess moving to a new city is closer to something I might do: I have been transfering schools all the time so by now I am used to it. But, precisely because I done it too much already, I wouldn't do it again unless it would ACADEMICALLY benefit me to. I can think of a few places that would -- but there is a reason why I am not there as of now: my application isn't strong enough (age being one of the factors: in the past when I was younger I was in far better places). I guess there is a way to make it stronger: get my physics papers published. But that goes right into the other problem that my writing style isn't clear and I want profs to help me edit my papers so that they can be accepted by journals. Of course, I do want to do it: my other age-related frustration is precisely the fact that I haven't made the progress that is expected of other physicists my age. But you see, if I have two things I am stuck on: physics progress AND women -- then tying them together isn't going to help me.

As far as seeing a psychiatrist, I am against meds. I do contemplate of seeing them for therapy without meds. But then this just begs the question: what advice would they be able to give me that you can't think of? Is there some extra dimension they would tell me about?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Atheism said:


> To be attracted to a person requires some pros, where there are cons. If you're just a desperate, socially anxious, unconfident person, there's gotta be more to you than that. Sorry.


I do have some pro-s. For example I wanted to be a physicist since I was 9, I like to think about deeper issues from science to philosophy to religion. I don't drink and I don't smoke and I don't believe in sex before marriage. I am committed Christian.

The reason I am not talking about those pro-s is simply because I am not comparing myself to a macDonalds worker, I am comparing myself to physicists, and most physicists my age are professors while I am going for a second ph.d. due to lack of better options. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of girls don't see it this way and say its impressive (which I am quickly to refute since I don't like compliments that aren't true).

But okay lets put it this way. I don't have to agree with her compliments in order for her to like me for these things: if anything, being humble should be a good thing. So why can't she like the fact that I am a physicist while I like the fact that I am such a loser and she helps me not be; and still we both like "something" so its win/win. I know it sounds pretty silly; but keep in mind, once relationship develops there will be a lot more things to bond over and a lot more things where we WOULD be on the same page. I am just talking about her passing the initial stages and looking past the negatives.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

KILOBRAVO said:


> just be aware that a desperate person also means that that person can be more likely to be unfaithful and disrespectful to you.


Its true that desperate person can be unfaithful because they settle; but then over-confident guys can be unfaithful because they are players. Is there any kind of statistics that would show that desperate are more likely to be unfaithful than others?


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

causalset said:


> Okay I will listen to your advice. The only problem is time frame. I am already 37. How long will it take me to improve myself? By the way someone on a different message board once said "its been 4 months since you made this thread, is your life any better?" Okay so do you think I can realistically change my situation in 4 months? If so, I would totally do it. I just have a sense it would take years not months, thats why I am so upset.


Yes in 4 months you can feel drastically better. Pick a CBT program ( I like overcoming social anxiety sorry by step) and spend 30 minutes every single day working on it. It will help. Your life won't turn around in4 months, but you'll be well on your way. Every single day persistence is what it takes. It will get better I promise.

And you know what if it doesn't then you find something else to try. You are important enough to exhaust every resource til you feel better. But you have to do the work and complaining about others is wasting your energy that you DESERVE for yourself. No one is changing for you, but you can commit to you. Be kind to yourself. I truly wish you the best.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> New career is out: I want to be a physicist, thats my life time goal.
> 
> I guess moving to a new city is closer to something I might do: I have been transfering schools all the time so by now I am used to it. But, precisely because I done it too much already, I wouldn't do it again unless it would ACADEMICALLY benefit me to. I can think of a few places that would -- but there is a reason why I am not there as of now: my application isn't strong enough (age being one of the factors: in the past when I was younger I was in far better places). I guess there is a way to make it stronger: get my physics papers published. But that goes right into the other problem that my writing style isn't clear and I want profs to help me edit my papers so that they can be accepted by journals. Of course, I do want to do it: my other age-related frustration is precisely the fact that I haven't made the progress that is expected of other physicists my age. But you see, if I have two things I am stuck on: physics progress AND women -- then tying them together isn't going to help me.
> 
> As far as seeing a psychiatrist, I am against meds. I do contemplate of seeing them for therapy without meds. But then this just begs the question: what advice would they be able to give me that you can't think of? Is there some extra dimension they would tell me about?


You're obviously a smart guy, but sometimes intelligent people get in their own way. Trying to justify desperation is not the answer here. Focus on your true passion (physics), and everything else should come organically.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

causalset said:


> The main reason I wouldn't want a homeless move in is that who knows what kind of diseases he would infect my room with. As far as paying his bills, he can't force me to pay his bills. I don't see why, in order to refuse to pay his bills, I have to refuse him from moving in too. Why can't there be a middle option, such as "you are welcome to move in, but I won't pay your bills, so if you don't pay your own bills, that would be between you and the house administration".


 I think you're not really thinking about what you're saying here. Or what allowing someone to live with you actually entails.

You let someone move in with you because you feel bad for them and the next thing you know, they come to you and they tell you they can't afford food or they can't pay for this or that and they're asking you for money. If you say no, it's just as bad as it would have been if you'd have told them you didn't want them living with you because they can't help themselves. Now are you gonna let this homeless guy who's living with you starve? He's gonna try and make you feel guilty about it and it's probably gonna work.

Now it's gone from just giving him a place to sleep to other things. Or you have the option of asking him to leave. Let's say you ask him to leave and he's more desperate than you thought and he really, really doesn't want to leave. So now he's mad at you and blaming you for kicking him out. Eventually, you might have to call the cops. He might get arrested. Now he's mad at you and he blames you for getting him arrested.

Now you might have to change your locks, any codes or passwords the person might have stolen, possibly change phone numbers. You might even have to move. All because you were trying to be nice.

The problem is that people really just don't want other people's problems. Most people already have things they're dealing with and when you take someone who is obviously desperate into your life, you're bringing all their problems along for the ride. You can try and not see it that way. And hey. Some people might not be as bad as others. But you never know and there's some kind of risk in everything.

Dependency is a big problem. And I'm not really preaching so much because I think I'm above it. I'm not. But I know how I depend on my parents and it sucks. For all of us.


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

Desperation and low self esteem are not going to be what attracts most people, for guys or girls imo. When I think of those two things one of the first things that comes to mind is "they're not ready for a relationship, they are probably trying to fill some kind of void, and they might have trouble even taking care of themselves". You can't nurture and grow a real relationship if you have serious issues there. Of course that's not always the case, not every time. I guess it depends on the level of desperation and how far their self esteem has tanked.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

realisticandhopeful said:


> Pick a CBT program


When I googled CBT it says "cognitive behavioral therapy". Is this what you mean? If so, is there a way I can get it cheap? I mean my salary as a graduate student (grad students teach and thats what they pay me for) is around 1300 a month, and I have to pay 570 a month for a rent, plus I need the rest of the money for food. The good thing is that there is a free counseling on campus. But they had a disclaimer that students are allowed only certain number of counseling sessions and after that they are referred to therapists in a community. That, plus also they don't have anything as specific as "congitive behavioral therapy" they just have a general counseling if you know what I mean. Anyway the question is: are there things I can get for a cheap price?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

AllTheSame said:


> Desperation and low self esteem are not going to be what attracts most people, for guys or girls imo. When I think of those two things one of the first things that comes to mind is "*they're not ready for a relationship, *they are probably trying to fill some kind of void, and they might have trouble even taking care of themselves". You can't nurture and grow a real relationship if you have serious issues there. Of course that's not always the case, not every time. I guess it depends on the level of desperation and how far their self esteem has tanked.


That one line that they are not ready for the relationship is what confuse me the most. How can you speak for other people? Shouldn't other people innately know themselves better than you do? So if they say they are ready (in fact they are desperate and desperation is extreme version of being ready) how can you say no they aren't? Are you saying they are not self aware? I mean I realize I have problem reading OTHER PEOPLE, but I don't think I have any problem reading myself. If I say I am ready for a relationship (which I think I am -- or else I won't be desperate to have something I am not ready for) then I am. But people seem to be telling me otherwise.

And the other thing right along with telling me that I am not ready for a relationship is telling me that I don't love them -- which I also heard. And in both cases I don't get how I can be TOLD that I don't want something which I know I do? If I truly didn't want it, what would I possibly gain by lying anyway? The only thing I would gain is a relationship -- which they think I don't want.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> You're obviously a smart guy, but sometimes intelligent people get in their own way. Trying to justify desperation is not the answer here. *Focus on your true passion (physics),* and everything else should come organically.


Thats the other line I heard, and I didn't understand why do they assume that the fact that I am a physicist negates the fact that I have normal human needs too?


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

causalset said:


> That one line that they are not ready for the relationship is what confuse me the most. How can you speak for other people? Shouldn't other people innately know themselves better than you do? So if they say they are ready (in fact they are desperate and desperation is extreme version of being ready) how can you say no they aren't? Are you saying they are not self aware? I mean I realize I have problem reading OTHER PEOPLE, but I don't think I have any problem reading myself. If I say I am ready for a relationship (which I think I am -- or else I won't be desperate to have something I am not ready for) then I am. But people seem to be telling me otherwise.


I really think you need to go back read my post again. If you think I'm thinking for other people you are either looking for a reason to get offended in this thread, or you have serious reading comprehension problems. Here, once again, is what I said lol.....(notice the italicized part in bold)....



AllTheSame said:


> Desperation and low self esteem are not going to be what attracts most people, for guys or girls imo. _*When I think of those two things one of the first things that comes to mind*_ is "they're not ready for a relationship, they are probably trying to fill some kind of void, and they might have trouble even taking care of themselves". You can't nurture and grow a real relationship if you have serious issues there. Of course that's not always the case, not every time. I guess it depends on the level of desperation and how far their self esteem has tanked.





causalset said:


> And the other thing right along with telling me that I am not ready for a relationship is telling me that I don't love them -- which I also heard. And in both cases I don't get how I can be TOLD that I don't want something which I know I do? If I truly didn't want it, what would I possibly gain by lying anyway? The only thing I would gain is a relationship -- which they think I don't want.


I can't speak for other people in this thread but I never told you what you do or don't want. Again, read my first comment in this post. You really are reaching here....you really are putting words into people's mouths to fuel your argument. And, tbh, I'm still not sure what your argument is. I just have a completely different opinion. Notice I used the word "opinion" about it. I'm not trying to tell you (or anyone) what they should or shouldn't do, or if it's morally justified or not. I'm just telling you how I feel about it.

Usually people make threads to get other people's opinions, points of view on an issue. Occasionally though, people just want to start conflict.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

@causalset

Your uni likely has free conseling services. Look into it and take advantage

The program I like is I think $180 or $30 for 6 months something like that. I'm broke too so I found the first 10 sessions of the older version on YouTube and the handouts online for free.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

causalset said:


> I do have some pro-s. For example I wanted to be a physicist since I was 9, I like to think about deeper issues from science to philosophy to religion. I don't drink and I don't smoke and I don't believe in sex before marriage. I am committed Christian.
> 
> The reason I am not talking about those pro-s is simply because I am not comparing myself to a macDonalds worker, I am comparing myself to physicists, and most physicists my age are professors while I am going for a second ph.d. due to lack of better options. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of girls don't see it this way and say its impressive (which I am quickly to refute since I don't like compliments that aren't true).
> 
> But okay lets put it this way. I don't have to agree with her compliments in order for her to like me for these things: if anything, being humble should be a good thing. So why can't she like the fact that I am a physicist while I like the fact that I am such a loser and she helps me not be; and still we both like "something" so its win/win. I know it sounds pretty silly; but keep in mind, *once relationship develops there will be a lot more things to bond over and a lot more things where we WOULD be on the same page. I am just talking about her passing the initial stages and looking past the negatives.*


Hmm, well people don't go into relationships initially in order to "find out" what else is good about them. They go into a relationship because they have already found all of those things. They already looked past the negatives. But there's gotta be a lot more emotional substance rather than just, she likes you being a physicist. And you need to be able to offer them a little something. Not just about what you are and your beliefs & principals. I know you will probably say back to this, "well being desperate/ready for a gf I would clearly give them all the attention they need" etc. etc. Fine, that's not a bad answer.

But yeah if this is about you personally, then I have no idea why "girls aren't interested in you" sorry. I'm just talking about in general. Also, people are drawn to good vibes. That's why all the confident guys & girls get attention.

Again I don't mean it's a requirement or anything - socially anxious people do find romantic partners. It's just going to be hard initially, you're right, I agree. The fun in flirting and whatnot is being drawn to things you LIKE, confidence, appearance, etc. Of course there's no emotional depth there yet. No matter how confident you are. But no one is going to walk around the mall and say, hmm, I wonder what that guy is about. He looks socially anxious but let me give him a chance. Maybe he's a physicist. No, people don't process that way lol.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

causalset said:


> Its true that desperate person can be unfaithful because they settle; but then over-confident guys can be unfaithful because they are players. Is there any kind of statistics that would show that desperate are more likely to be unfaithful than others?


well, its true that both ways can not be good.

I have even read that very insecure and clingy women are even more likely to cheat on you.. and this seems to match up with my experience and they way she was. They are also very quick to jealousy.

So its finding a happy middle ground.

Its better to not forget who you are and stop paying so much attention to the foibles of others.


----------



## acidicwithpanic (May 14, 2014)

causalset said:


> When I googled CBT it says "cognitive behavioral therapy". Is this what you mean? If so, is there a way I can get it cheap? I mean my salary as a graduate student (grad students teach and thats what they pay me for) is around 1300 a month, and I have to pay 570 a month for a rent, plus I need the rest of the money for food. The good thing is that there is a free counseling on campus. But they had a disclaimer that students are allowed only certain number of counseling sessions and after that they are referred to therapists in a community. That, plus also they don't have anything as specific as "congitive behavioral therapy" they just have a general counseling if you know what I mean. Anyway the question is: are there things I can get for a cheap price?


You can actually negotiate with a lot of therapists about lowering the price of each session if you're on a budget. Call or email one of these people and ask about a "sliding scale." You can both come to a compromise about how much would be a reasonable amount to spend taking your lower salary into mind.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

I don't hide my social anxiety from anyone. I don't hide it because I'm *not* desperate, I want to filter out anyone who isn't compatible with me.

Desperation = poor judgement = bad relationship choices (taking the first available warm body instead of someone compatible) = lots of headaches and pain down the road. It also means clingy stalker, potentially, who won't let go when you realize you don't like them. And of course it means high emotional maintenance.

It's always far better to be with someone who's choosing you for being you, than to be with someone who's using you for being available in their time of desperation.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

@causalset

I have no idea if it's OK for me to do this but check out this: http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/resources/consumers.cfm The workbook modules on there help for various issues, including social anxiety. It's self-help so you do have to do them yourself, but it's essentially CBT for free.

Also, as much as it pains me to agree with AllTheSame on something, when people say 'ready for a relationship' in that sense, it generally means 'mentally/emotionally mature enough' i.e. *not* desperate. I'm aware it's confusing, since a desperate person should be much more grateful for a relationship and theoretically more loving, but human brains don't work that way.

If you're desperate for money, you'll get that money however you can. You'll do things you never thought capable of, just for that money. But that's not mentally/emotionally healthy and people will take advantage of that. Do you see why that's a bad thing?


----------



## rm123 (Mar 21, 2016)

Just because a guy is confident doesn't mean he won't reciprocate a girl's love lmao? You can't say you'd be a more loving boyfriend just because you're desperate for a relationship (and there's a massive difference between reciprocating someone's love & being desperate to have the chance to reciprocate love lmaoo)

I went on a date with a reaaaaally shy guy before, and that's coming from someone with SA. He sat there in silence while I RACKED my brains again & again for conversation, then when I said I didn't wanna meet again he messaged me for months begging to go out with him, know what he did wrong, try to send me horribly cringey sexts trying to turn me on. I had To block him eventually. Shyness I can sympathise with, but desperation is always a turn-off.

Confidence makes someone funnier, more attractive, more relaxing to be around, and less likely to be rolling in self-pity because they feel entitled to girl's attention & bitter for not getting it


----------



## May19 (Apr 25, 2012)

Personally for me, it's not that the desperation is necessarily bad. It's that a relationship that comes out of desperation isn't meaningful. Why choose to be with someone that is desperate to have someone? Do they even want to be with you because it's you or do they just want to be in a relationship because that's what they've been craving after all these years/times? If so, then what does that make you? If the person only wants a relationship for the sake of having one, then that's unattractive to me. Because quite frankly, it doesn't have to be me. It can be some other person out there. 

In the same way, I wouldn't want to date someone just because I want to date someone. I want to date someone because there are things I like about them and there are things I like about the way I interact with them, etc. I think often time what can come out of desperation is the lack of real purpose and specific love. 

If I was told by a guy that he likes me but I know that he tends to like everyone that is nice to him, it's not meaningful. I know that sometimes you can't really explain why you like a person, but I think if you can't even come up with any specific reasons, it's probably just infatuation. I wouldn't want to date someone who was only infatuated with me and in the same way, I expect that a guy wouldn't want to date me if I was only infatuated with him. And I just think that sometimes when people are desperate to be loved and to have love, they don't see that their feelings for some people just aren't deep. It's rather generic. It's just the NEED to want to connect with someone. It just the feeling of WANTING to have something meaningful. 

But until you actually find someone that does make you feel that way. Just going around and liking everyone person you talk to in hopes that someone might reciprocate it is just a desperate attempt. Not saying that you're doing such a thing. I just notice that a lot of time, people who are desperate does that and that includes both girls and guys. And that's what results in an relationship that just falls apart really quickly. It's not based on actual romantic feeling.


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

Desperation isn't attractive. What's so hard to understand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

The reason why confident people are more attractive is because they make themselves more noticeable. Who are you more likely to want to be friends with? Someone who's friendly, sociable, tries to make conversation with you and make you feel good or someone who never talks to you, never smiles, never gives you the time of day? 

Friendly people are more popular because they know how to make others feel good and know how to make others feel comfortable. 

That's what you should do.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

There's nothing wrong with desperation. Sometimes our desperations for a change of our life situation can drive us to improve with whatever we wish to accomplish. 

However your intense loneliness and desperation can either break you or inspire you. Either you wallow in your hated and jealously of those in relationship and become a self-victim of your singleness or rise from the ashes and become determined to get better with dating and find a girlfriend. 

The choice is yours.


----------



## AllTheSame (Mar 19, 2016)

I just want to add something I left out in my first post.....a lot of people are in love with the idea of being in love. If you don't know the difference between being in love, and being in love with the idea, then imo you are going to have your heart broken or you're going to break someone else's heart. They are not, not, not the same thing. And you are really hurting anyone you're in a relationship with, just because you are in love with the idea of being "with someone". That is a really horrible, awful thing to do to another human being just for your own emotional satisfaction / well being.


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

what a way to end up in the nut house. I try not to think about desperation or else I go nuts.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Except it is, and that's what matters.


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

xxDark Horse said:


> The reason why confident people are more attractive is because they make themselves more noticeable. Who are you more likely to want to be friends with? Someone who's friendly, sociable, tries to make conversation with you and make you feel good or someone who never talks to you, never smiles, never gives you the time of day?
> 
> Friendly people are more popular because they know how to make others feel good and know how to make others feel comfortable.
> 
> That's what you should do.


Yes. And the confident person is willing to make mistakes. One thing causalset is doing, evident from many of his posts, and I'm sure a lot of us here including myself have been guilty of, is trying to figure out everything in advance in an attempt to avoid mistakes - which you simply cannot do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Raies (Nov 3, 2016)

realisticandhopeful said:


> What do people get from these threads? Yes you're frustrated, but noone is suddenly gonna become attracted to desperation. You can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not attracted to. On this board so many blame society, girls, looks, height everyone and everything because they feel powerless. If you had a girlfriend you'd still feel like ****. Wherever you go there you are.
> 
> Put the focus on feeling better about yourself. Meds, therapy, work, school, hobbies, get your life together and then you'll be attractive to someone else. If you try 1 thing and it doesn't work try another. Try 10 or 20 don't give up on yourself. It's hard work to get better, but focusing on yourself and seeking the help you need is the only way. Otherwise you'll be on this board at 70 still complaining that people should change for you when you won't put the effort to change yourself.
> 
> I'm sorry but I specifically decided to allow myself one blunt post. Noone is gonna change for you. You put all that energy thinking about other people into working on yourself. Social anxiety isn't fair. None of us deserve this. But it's our responsibility as adults to do what we can to create a better life for ourselves. Thems the cards kids. Take it or leave it. Or keep complaining about **** that will never happen. And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


Thank you...
This is just what I think every time I see this kind of threads. Pretty much a perfect summary.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

realisticandhopeful said:


> What do people get from these threads? Yes you're frustrated, but noone is suddenly gonna become attracted to desperation. You can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not attracted to. On this board so many blame society, girls, looks, height everyone and everything because they feel powerless. If you had a girlfriend you'd still feel like ****. Wherever you go there you are.
> 
> Put the focus on feeling better about yourself. Meds, therapy, work, school, hobbies, get your life together and then you'll be attractive to someone else. If you try 1 thing and it doesn't work try another. Try 10 or 20 don't give up on yourself. It's hard work to get better, but focusing on yourself and seeking the help you need is the only way. Otherwise you'll be on this board at 70 still complaining that people should change for you when you won't put the effort to change yourself.
> 
> I'm sorry but I specifically decided to allow myself one blunt post. Noone is gonna change for you. You put all that energy thinking about other people into working on yourself. Social anxiety isn't fair. None of us deserve this. But it's our responsibility as adults to do what we can to create a better life for ourselves. Thems the cards kids. Take it or leave it. Or keep complaining about **** that will never happen. And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


Good post.

I think we can all just agree that women place far too much importance on a mans shoes and leave it at that, am I right guys?


----------



## andy0128 (Dec 19, 2003)

Some girls would be happy to date a guy with SA but many wouldn't. Assuming that you have two guys of similar looks and financial status most girls prefer the more confident one because they associate SA as a weakness, they are awkward to be around and you cannot integrate them into your social circles very well. However some women aren't as bothered with those factors, they may have an unusually good chemistry with the SA guy, they may value good points in his character like loyalty, they can be more easily dominated or the girl may also have similar problems and prefers a guy like her. 

It is possible for SA guys to find someone but the pool of potential partners is much smaller and you may have to cast your net further afield.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> causalset said:
> 
> 
> > Thats the other line I heard, and I didn't understand why do they assume that the fact that I am a physicist negates the fact that I have normal human needs too?
> ...


I just don't understand why it has to be a choice anyway. Why can't I have both needs at the same time without either of them being secondary? I mean, if I were to complain about physics career (not getting published) and someone were to tell me "don't worry about physics career just focus on finding a girlfriend" I wouldn't like that advice either. Most normal people are successful in both career and relationship at the same time. Why do people assume I can't do that too? Or is it just a tool to avoid saying what they really think?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

rm123 said:


> Just because a guy is confident doesn't mean he won't reciprocate a girl's love lmao?


I didn't say he won't, I am saying that the guy thats desperate will reciprocate it even more.



rm123 said:


> You can't say you'd be a more loving boyfriend just because you're desperate for a relationship


I would be, since I would be greatful the girl changed my entire life, whereas in case of the confident guy she only made it better.



rm123 said:


> (and there's a massive difference between reciprocating someone's love & being desperate to have the chance to reciprocate love lmaoo)


That is one of the main things I disagree with. I mean, logically, if I am desperate to do X, this would imply that I am a lot more likely to do X than someone else thats less desperate. But this is something that others don't seem to be buying. So how is it possible to be desperate to do something yet NOT do it any more than someone else who is less desperate? Do they think I am not self aware and thats why there would be this type of mismatch, or what do they think?



rm123 said:


> I went on a date with a reaaaaally shy guy before, and that's coming from someone with SA. He sat there in silence while I RACKED my brains again & again for conversation, then when I said I didn't wanna meet again he messaged me for months begging to go out with him, know what he did wrong, try to send me horribly cringey sexts trying to turn me on. I had To block him eventually. Shyness I can sympathise with, but desperation is always a turn-off.


His behavior is the EXACT way I been acting with various girls from dating sites (except that I didn't do it for months but rather weeks, but still): our dates didn't go well because I didn't know what to talk about and then I been asking them what I did wrong and begging for second chance. But you see there is a reason why I did it: just because I don't know what to talk about the first time around doesn't mean I can't warm up later on. If I take the three relationships I DID have (one lasted 8 months and the other two lasted 2 years each) I had no problem holding a conversation, so this is really about getting by the initial stages which is why its so frustrating when women give up entirely due to the fact that first date didn't go well. Now I realize that pestering someone is not a good behavior either: even if I don't agree with their choice its still their choice. But its like what else am I supposed to do? Because its a vicious cycle that people don't want to be around me because I can't hold a conversation and I can't hold a conversation because no one gives me a sufficient time. And I am not saying that any gender "owns" anything to the other gender: if I was a girl and the guys were rejecting me for being shy I would act in exact same way.


----------



## January (Nov 16, 2016)

causalset said:


> I would be, since I would be greatful the girl changed my entire life, whereas in case of the confident guy she only made it better.


Okay, here's where I think your problem is. It really sounds like, and I don't mean this cruelly because I think it's something plenty of us with SA struggle with, you don't _have_ much of a life. You have your education, and&#8230; that's about it, apparently. Average people will have friends, hobbies, clubs, volunteer work, something else going on in their life that gives them joy/pleasure.

Sitting around waiting for a girl to "change your entire life" implies that you're going to become needy and dependent on her for all your social interactions, since you don't have anyone else. That isn't appealing (and can border on creepy depending on how it presents), because unless she's in the exact same situation as you, she's already going to _have_ a life and things she wants to do, including things you won't be included in or things you just aren't interested in. On the other hand, look at the more confident (or more social, or whatever) person, who is going to have at least some level of friendships and/or activities outside of the relationship and therefore seems, at least at face value, less likely to become clingy and jealous. A healthy relationship isn't one where you two are each other's entire worlds.

I really think you should pick a volunteer organization and/or a club and commit. Most volunteer organizations and shelters are pretty much always looking for volunteers. Most clubs won't kick you out if you're busy with schoolwork and have to miss a meeting. You've mentioned you're a Christian, so find a church in your area to go to regularly (even if you just pick the one with the most women). I'm not saying you need to do those things for six months before looking for a girlfriend, but at least try to do them at the same time, you know? Start building a life of your own so you can "bring something to the table" in terms of a relationship.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> That is one of the main things I disagree with. I mean, logically, if I am desperate to do X, this would imply that I am a lot more likely to do X than someone else thats less desperate. But this is something that others don't seem to be buying. So how is it possible to be desperate to do something yet NOT do it any more than someone else who is less desperate? Do they think I am not self aware and thats why there would be this type of mismatch, or what do they think?


That's logically flawed, desire isn't the only factor used to decide whether you are likely to do something. For instance, a man who is very comfortable approaching women is generally speaking more likely to approach women than one who is very uncomfortable doing so, even though the uncomfortable one is probably more desperate.



causalset said:


> His behavior is the EXACT way I been acting with various girls from dating sites (except that I didn't do it for months but rather weeks, but still): our dates didn't go well because I didn't know what to talk about and then I been asking them what I did wrong and begging for second chance. But you see there is a reason why I did it: just because I don't know what to talk about the first time around doesn't mean I can't warm up later on. If I take the three relationships I DID have (one lasted 8 months and the other two lasted 2 years each) I had no problem holding a conversation, so this is really about getting by the initial stages which is why its so frustrating when women give up entirely due to the fact that first date didn't go well. Now I realize that pestering someone is not a good behavior either: even if I don't agree with their choice its still their choice. But its like what else am I supposed to do? Because its a vicious cycle that people don't want to be around me because I can't hold a conversation and I can't hold a conversation because no one gives me a sufficient time. And I am not saying that any gender "owns" anything to the other gender: if I was a girl and the guys were rejecting me for being shy I would act in exact same way.


What you're supposed to do is realise that you have a problem having cold conversations (conversations with a stranger) and figure out a way to mitigate this issue. Of the top of my head you could either try to improve your cold conversation skills or try an approach that means that you get to interact before you meet in person, I'm sure there are plenty of other potential solutions.

Too put it bluntly, the world doesn't care that it's harder for you. You may get lucky, but you're probably going to have to try harder to compensate for your difficulties. It's not fair but it's true.


----------



## Destormjanina1 (Jan 9, 2017)

Sooo you would choose the skinny one but still don't understand why girls would choose the confident one? Interesting


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

January said:


> Okay, here's where I think your problem is. It really sounds like, and I don't mean this cruelly because I think it's something plenty of us with SA struggle with, you don't _have_ much of a life. You have your education, and&#8230; that's about it, apparently. Average people will have friends, hobbies, clubs, volunteer work, something else going on in their life that gives them joy/pleasure.


Yes this pretty much sums it up. I guess I could say that I spent 5 years in India which would "on the surface" sound like I am an interesting person, but if you go any deeper than that I spent most of my time in India doing physics (thats what I went there for -- after I completted my first Ph.D. in US, I did three postdocs in India since I couldn't get in anywhere else) and I haven't seen much of what it has to offer, for example I never been to Taj Mahal and so forth. Also I could say, on the surface, that I traveled across Europe, but that was because my parents were dragging me there every summer and they are a lot more cultured than me, so I wasn't paying attention to things they were showing me and won't be able to tell too much. The only part that counts when it comes to having actual experiences I could share, is that I came from Russia to US, but thats what people already know and apparently its not enough.

But anyway thats not what you were talking about, you were mostly focusing on here and now, not several years ago. So, as far as "friends", I have trouble making friends for the same reason as I have trouble finding a girlfriend, so it just begs the question: why can't I find any friends? As far as hobbies, well I like long distance running, I like traveling (not the type of travel my parents had me go to where I was forced to see museums but more a free spirit type of travel when I am by myself and just wonder around random places trying different foods and stuff), I like bookstores -- particularly Barns and Noble and Borders when it was around. As far as clubs -- well I been going to church but no one was talking to me. No I didn't try any clubs, but I am guessing that if I couldn't get ppl in church to talk to me then in the clubs they wouldn't talk to me either. As far as volunteer work, I always thought of it as something optional and I don't have time for it since I have school to do.



January said:


> Sitting around waiting for a girl to "change your entire life" implies that you're going to become needy and dependent on her for all your social interactions, since you don't have anyone else.


This would be only on the first step but I hope for this to change throughout our relationship. Here is one scenario on how it might change. So she introduces me to her friends; then, after I become good friends with her friends, I start seeing them without always having her around, and then her friends would introduce me to their friends, and those would then be my friends rather than hers (since she wasn't around when they introduced me to them) and then I have my own network of friends! My main problem is that I "can't get the foot through the door", but if I were to have a girlfriend she would help me get through this stage.



January said:


> That isn't appealing (and can border on creepy depending on how it presents), because unless she's in the exact same situation as you, she's already going to _have_ a life and things she wants to do, including things you won't be included in *or things you just aren't interested in.*


The assumption that I won't be interested in things I am not already doing is what most people make, but they are wrong. I had three girlfriends; the third one didn't have friends herself so I can't blame her, but the first two had friends but they weren't bringing me together with their friends too often because they assumed I wouldn't be interested in it, which is false. I wish they were to introduce me to their friends then I would have been in a totally different situation now. I mean, let me give you one example: I am not very interested in video games. But when my second ex introduced me to that chareokee video game where I had to sign and then the characters of judges were to criticize my singing, I liked it. But I wouldn't have known I like it if she didn't show it to me. In the same way, if people start talking about something I never heard of, of course I would just give them a blank stare and appear disinterested; but if they were to take time and teach me those things then I might end up finding them interesting.



January said:


> I really think you should pick a volunteer organization and/or a club and commit.


I guess between volunteer and club I would pick club, I mean volunteer doesn't look like some place people socialize; or am I wrong? Also how many hours a week does volunteer take? I might not have this time given that i have studies to do.



January said:


> Most clubs won't kick you out if you're busy with schoolwork and have to miss a meeting.


Side question: why did you even bring up "kicking out"? I thought in order to be kicked out from the club you have to do something crazy, or am I wrong?



January said:


> You've mentioned you're a Christian, so find a church in your area to go to regularly (even if you just pick the one with the most women). I'm not saying you need to do those things for six months before looking for a girlfriend, but at least try to do them at the same time, you know? Start building a life of your own so you can "bring something to the table" in terms of a relationship.


I been going to church past two and a half years but it wasn't helping much as people didn't talk to me. Maybe I spent too much time in each church? Like I went for a year to Church of Christ and then for the other year to Southern Baptist church and this half a year I am going to Messianic churches (I always been Messianic, I was simply living in the place where Messianic churches weren't around and I don't drive, but now that I moved to a different place where there are Messianic churches thats where I go). So maybe instead of spending a year in the former two churches I should have been moving around more, kind of like if they don't talk to me within first certain number of weeks I should change church? As of Messianic churches I go to now, they are mostly older people (the other churches I mentioned had younger people there) so maybe I should look into Adventist church and see who goes there? I really don't want to go to sunday church when there are saturday churches around, but I haven't yet tried all the saturday options.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

May19 said:


> Personally for me, it's not that the desperation is necessarily bad. It's that a relationship that comes out of desperation isn't meaningful. Why choose to be with someone that is desperate to have someone? Do they even want to be with you because it's you or do they just want to be in a relationship because that's what they've been craving after all these years/times? If so, then what does that make you? If the person only wants a relationship for the sake of having one, then that's unattractive to me. Because quite frankly, it doesn't have to be me. It can be some other person out there.
> 
> In the same way, I wouldn't want to date someone just because I want to date someone. I want to date someone because there are things I like about them and there are things I like about the way I interact with them, etc. I think often time what can come out of desperation is the lack of real purpose and specific love.
> 
> ...


I guess what you are trying to say is that if someone is desperate, they can lie that they like something about you in particular when thats not true. Its certainly possible, but there is also another option: what if they DO like something about you in particular which simply COINCIDES with general desperation? I guess people rule the second possibility out by that common belief that "you can't love someone else before you love yourself" but I am just not buying it. I think its entirely possible to be desperate for ANY female and AT THE SAME TIME like this particular one female. I can even give you an example. There was a girl named Anne back in 2005 who rejected me because I lack self confidence, and among other things she also said "of course you like me: I am the only one who paid attention to you". But she was totally wrong: I had two relationships after that (one in 2007 -- 2009 and the other one in 2012 -- 2014) and throughout each one I kept thinking back to Anne and asking my girlfriends why Anne rejected me. Now I realize that talking about Anne when I am dating someone else is also wrong, but that doesn't change the point that I am trying to make that I DO have a priorities DESPITE being desperate, as Anne example illustrates. And now that I finally was able to forget about Anne, it is entirely possible for a different girl to be on the top of my list, just like Anne once was.

But you see, if I wasn't desperate, then Anne wouldn't have even made it to my list on the first place: I would be doing physics and not even paying attention to her at all! So you see, "at first" I paid attention to Anne because I was desperate but then "afterwords" it turned out that I liked her more than any other girl. So in the same way its possible that I can originally pay attention to a different girl out of desperation but then she would make it to the top.

The other thing to note is that nobody else has "deep meaningful connection" from day 1 either. Its always "something specific" that makes people "pay attention" to each other and only afterwords they "find out" other things that they have in common that would create deep connection. So why can't "something specific" be desperation? As in, out of desperation to be with someone, I became so greatful that this specific girl paid attention to me, which caused me to find out more and more things about this specific girl, and then finding out so many things about her would make me fall in love with her, specifically? If I was less desperate I would also find out some things about her, but then she would have been my second priority to physics so I wouldn't have had time to find out about her nearly as much as I have time when I am desperate. So desperation simply "drew my attention" to her, and then once my attention is drawn on her, I find other reasons to like her.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Destormjanina1 said:


> Sooo you would choose the skinny one but still don't understand why girls would choose the confident one? Interesting


Like I explained in OP, I am perfectly fine with women choosing physically stronger one despite my being physically weaker. I simply don't think that woman being overweight _or_ man being weak would keep either of them single. But desperation apparently does. And like I explained I don't see a problem with desperation on the part of a woman so I don't like when women think desperation on the part of a man is a bad thing.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Atheism said:


> Hmm, well people don't go into relationships initially in order to "find out" what else is good about them. They go into a relationship because they have already found all of those things. They already looked past the negatives.


Well, people should look past negatives regardless: I mean clearly I spent certain number of years in this world, so logically I must have done something with those years (and I am not talking about my age, I mean whether you are 20 or 37, in either case you spent plenty of time for there to be something about you that you can offer). So when people, upon seeing the negative, assume there is nothing else that I can possibly offer (since they won't take time to find out) that seems to imply that they think I am not even a human. I mean really: I spent all my life walking the earth and throughout the whole life I didn't develop ANY positives at all, the only thing I am defined by is the negative? Would they ever imagine a possibility of THEMSELVES spending their entire life cultivating only negatives and nothing else? If not, why would they make such an assumption about someone else like me?



Atheism said:


> But there's gotta be a lot more emotional substance rather than just, she likes you being a physicist. And you need to be able to offer them a little something. Not just about what you are and your beliefs & principals.


My being a physicist is only something that would get me through the door. But once I am in a relationship then of course there would be other, deeper, things that would develop. I mean, the deeper connection is individual to a given person or a given relationship. How can I possibly have anything deeper before I started interacting with the person on the first place? There is, however, a POTENTIAL for deeper things to develop.

Take for example my second relationship. The way it started out is that I was desperate to be with someone. But then 4 months into the relationship she lost a lot of blood during her cycles due to PCOS and she could barely walk. I was taking care of her, cooking her food and stuff, keeping her from sleepwalking, and so forth. This created a huge bond between us. When she was no longer as sick, she became bossy and this made me not like her any more, but I still sticked around for another year because I was remembering her being sick, depressed, and so forth, and didn't want to "betray" her. It got to the point when I was regretting I found her on the first place and was promising myself to never get into another relationship if I ever get "set free" from her. But still I didn't want to break up (she ended up the one breaking up with me) because I didn't want to hurt her. Now, could I ever anticipate that I would stay in a relationship for this particular reason? No. But this is what happened.

The point I am trying to make is that desperation on my part and liking that I am a physicist on her part is something that can get me through the door. Once I get through the door, then a lot of other things have potential to develop. I realize that my second relationship is not a good example: it wasn't healthy; but the point is that even if you take healthy relationship, you don't have "something deeper" right away; it always starts with something small and then "something deeper" develops. And my complaint is why can't girls talk to me or even say hello to me and thereby prevent this "starting with something small" from ever happening?



Atheism said:


> But no one is going to walk around the mall and say, hmm, I wonder what that guy is about. He looks socially anxious but let me give him a chance. Maybe he's a physicist. No, people don't process that way lol.


And why wouldn't they? It takes only few minutes to walk around the mall, but it might pay off in several years to come. How do they know I am so surely have nothing to offer that it wouldn't even worth a few minutes of their time to see?


----------



## January (Nov 16, 2016)

causalset said:


> But anyway thats not what you were talking about, you were mostly focusing on here and now, not several years ago. So, as far as "friends", I have trouble making friends for the same reason as I have trouble finding a girlfriend, so it just begs the question: why can't I find any friends? *As far as hobbies, well I like long distance running, I like traveling (not the type of travel my parents had me go to where I was forced to see museums but more a free spirit type of travel when I am by myself and just wonder around random places trying different foods and stuff), I like bookstores -- particularly Barns and Noble and Borders when it was around*. As far as clubs -- well I been going to church but no one was talking to me. No I didn't try any clubs, but I am guessing that if I couldn't get ppl in church to talk to me then in the clubs they wouldn't talk to me either. As far as volunteer work, I always thought of it as something optional and I don't have time for it since I have school to do.


What about a hiking or running club, or a book club? That way it would be something you're already interested in.



> This would be only on the first step but I hope for this to change throughout our relationship. Here is one scenario on how it might change. So she introduces me to her friends; then, after I become good friends with her friends, I start seeing them without always having her around, and then her friends would introduce me to their friends, and those would then be my friends rather than hers (since she wasn't around when they introduced me to them) and then I have my own network of friends! My main problem is that I "can't get the foot through the door", but if I were to have a girlfriend she would help me get through this stage.


I do understand where you're coming from with this, but I think part of your problem is that you're waiting for a girlfriend to open all these doors for you, and many social/extroverted people might consider your lack of friends a red flag. Based on what you're saying, it seems like you're looking for someone more outgoing than you, right? So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: you know what you would gain from a relationship with a person like that, but how would a that person benefit from being in a relationship with you?



> I guess between volunteer and club I would pick club, I mean volunteer doesn't look like some place people socialize; or am I wrong? *Also how many hours a week does volunteer take?* I might not have this time given that i have studies to do.


The group I just signed up to volunteer with requires two hours a week. Last year I was a part of a group that volunteered at the local shelter and we were there for about two hours a week as well, a little more or less depending on how many dogs were there. (I didn't go much because of my SA, which I regret now.) There are definitely groups that require much more commitment, but in general I find people who are willing to donate their time for free tend to be reasonably friendly/kind people.



> Side question: why did you even bring up "kicking out"? I thought in order to be kicked out from the club you have to do something crazy, or am I wrong?


You're right, I've just seen you mention that you're busy with schoolwork sometimes so I assumed you might not have time to attend every meeting or activity. Sorry if I was wrong. 



> I been going to church past two and a half years but it wasn't helping much as people didn't talk to me. Maybe I spent too much time in each church? Like I went for a year to Church of Christ and then for the other year to Southern Baptist church and this half a year I am going to Messianic churches (I always been Messianic, I was simply living in the place where Messianic churches weren't around and I don't drive, but now that I moved to a different place where there are Messianic churches thats where I go). So maybe instead of spending a year in the former two churches I should have been moving around more, kind of like if they don't talk to me within first certain number of weeks I should change church? As of Messianic churches I go to now, they are mostly older people (the other churches I mentioned had younger people there) so maybe I should look into Adventist church and see who goes there? I really don't want to go to sunday church when there are saturday churches around, but I haven't yet tried all the saturday options.


Moving around more often would probably be a better idea, a year in each church sounds way too long for just "trying" a church. When I was younger and my family was trying out churches after a move, we'd try a place for 2-4 weeks before deciding. The other advantage to moving around more is you're going to be "the new person" more, so you might get approached by greeters more often. Do you think your body language or facial expressions might be giving people the impression that you don't want to be approached? Because it seems strange that you haven't been greeted by anyone at any of the churches you've tried.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

causalset said:


> Anyway, here is a better comparison. If all other factors are equal, and I have to choose between desperate girl and the confident one, then I would choose the desperate one. In fact it already happened: in one of my two year relationship the second year of it I didn't like her at all (she was too bossy) but I stayed with her out of pity. So here you go. But I guess its not the best example: after all if a girl doesn't like me and only stays with me out of pity that won't solve my self esteem problem anyway. But you see, like I said, what I didn't like about that girl was NOT the fact that she was desperate but the fact that she was bossy. Her being bossy is what pushed me away, and her being lonely and desperate is what made me want to stay. So if I were to take a different example where a girl is NOT bossy but ONLY lonely and desperate, then yes I would totally choose her over her confident counterpart.
> 
> Now you might want to say that I am being sexist because a non-bossy girl who is lonely and desperate is the one that is easily controlled. Well no I am not. Because I am in the same shoes as her: I am non-bossy and I am lonely and desperate. So I don't think either partner should control the other partner. Rather I think that two lonely and desperate people bonding in order to help each other with self esteem issues is the perfect thing to bond over. I just don't understand why others don't see it this way. Others say you have to love yourself before loving anyone else. But I think if you take two people who don't love themselves trying to make each other a company that would be a perfect recipy for them falling in love with each other, far deeper love than anything normal people experience.


Here's the problem with desperate people; They make desperation a way of life.

Who wouldn't love to help out someone in a desperate situation? You do that because you know that it makes you feel good when they are no longer desperate. You feel good about yourself because you helped someone get out of a desperation situation. But, all too often with desperate people, they do not give you your reward. You want to see them happy. You want to feel the satisfaction of making them happy, but you do not get that satisfaction, because the desperate individual just goes on being desperate. You could kill yourself trying to help them be a little happy, but they will always have another source of desperation.

Soon, you realize that all of the effort with them is sucking the happiness right out of your life. You give and give, trying to solve their problems for them, but they are always just as desperate. That's the only way they know to get attention from anyone; they have made desperation a way of life. That's the problem for desperate people and that is why they drive everyone away from themselves.


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

causalset said:


> I didn't say he won't, I am saying that the guy thats desperate will reciprocate it even more.
> 
> I would be, since I would be greatful the girl changed my entire life, whereas in case of the confident guy she only made it better.
> 
> That is one of the main things I disagree with. I mean, logically, if I am desperate to do X, this would imply that I am a lot more likely to do X than someone else thats less desperate. But this is something that others don't seem to be buying. So how is it possible to be desperate to do something yet NOT do it any more than someone else who is less desperate? Do they think I am not self aware and thats why there would be this type of mismatch, or what do they think?


The fact you're desperate to do X and thus more likely to do X, isn't a consideration. Your mistake is the assumption that "more likely to do X" means something when desperation is the driving factor - it doesn't. A person would rather take the chance with [less likely + confident] than [more likely + desperate] - and it's not even close.

You really need to consider this from the other person's point of view too. Do you think they will feel good about being with someone who is desperate?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Erroll said:


> Here's the problem with desperate people; They make desperation a way of life.
> 
> Who wouldn't love to help out someone in a desperate situation? You do that because you know that it makes you feel good when they are no longer desperate. You feel good about yourself because you helped someone get out of a desperation situation. But, all too often with desperate people, they do not give you your reward. You want to see them happy. You want to feel the satisfaction of making them happy, but you do not get that satisfaction, because the desperate individual just goes on being desperate. You could kill yourself trying to help them be a little happy, but they will always have another source of desperation.
> 
> Soon, you realize that all of the effort with them is sucking the happiness right out of your life. You give and give, trying to solve their problems for them, but they are always just as desperate. That's the only way they know to get attention from anyone; they have made desperation a way of life. That's the problem for desperate people and that is why they drive everyone away from themselves.


Okay the pattern with me has been as follows: first I was desperate, then someone takes me out of desperate situation, then I think "all of my problems are solved, I can now relax and do what I want" and then when I "relax and do what I want" I run into another desperate situation, and then when it keeps happening over and over people give up. *But the point is that I don't want it to be my way of life* Maybe the reason "relaxing" is so bad is because I don't have enough social experience in order to follow social rules naturally. And that is where the girl comes in: if she were to introduce me to social circles and guide me through things then things would become more natural. I guess if I take my second ex, then she was in fact trying to change my lifestyle but that only backfired in my thinking she was nagging so it didn't help. But I can see how I can change my attitude so that it "would" help. I can do it in the following way: I know I can't be where I am all life long, so I have to do "something". Now, which is easier: to do the work by myself without any outside support system, or to follow someone else's advice and resist the temptation to say she is nagging? I would say the latter is easier than the former. So that is what I have to remind myself next time I am dating a girl and feel like she is nagging. I also have to remind myself that she would be doing me a favor since she would be helping me with exact thing I needed help all those years. I agree that reminding myself about this might be pretty difficult thing to do, especially once I am well into a relationship. But, like I said, I am desperate; so out of desperation I have to push myself to do what is difficult ESPECIALLY since its not nearly as difficult as having to do it by myself.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

January said:


> What about a hiking or running club, or a book club? That way it would be something you're already interested in.


I signed up for running meetups few weeks ago but then ended up not going because of studies. One thought that crossed my mind was "why am I looking for running clubs on a community if there are probably running clubs on campus which would be closer to my ultimate goal" but then when I asked on campus they said they don't have running clubs, but that person wasn't super knowledgible so this didn't convince me to go to meetup one yet I didn't really go to recheck whats on campus either. So I guess I have to do it and stop putting it off. Find out conclusively does campus has anything or not and based on this decide whether I want to go to meetup or campus, but I should go to one or the other.

As far as book clubs I never thought about it so thanks for suggestion. I will look them up on google and see what I can find.



January said:


> I do understand where you're coming from with this, but I think part of your problem is that you're waiting for a girlfriend to open all these doors for you, and many social/extroverted people might consider your lack of friends a red flag.


Which begs the question: why do they consider it a red flag? If they think loners are such a bad people, what would happen if they change their ways? Would they stop being loners? Nope -- since everyone would be taking their loner status as a red flag. Which is precisely why its unfair. What would they answer to this argument?

And by the way, here is one more reason I need a girlfriend: merely having a girlfriend would remove this red flag out of the way (I don't mean I would cheat I mean red flag in the friendship department with others would be taken out of the way once I have a girlfriend)



January said:


> Based on what you're saying, it seems like you're looking for someone more outgoing than you, right?


Just about anyone is "more outgoing than me". So perhaps I am looking for someone who isn't "too" outgoing by other people's standards, that way I can keep up. Or even if we are equally shy, its still better to be in a company of two people than no one at all. So I guess the benefit of shy girl is that we would be more alike and probably bond more easily, while the benefit of more outgoing girl would be that she would introduce me to her circle of friends.



January said:


> So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: you know what you would gain from a relationship with a person like that, but how would a that person benefit from being in a relationship with you?


Well everyone needs help with something. I can't possibly know what abstract girl would need my help with, thats why I only talk about what she can help me with. But once I get to know her I would find what she needs help and then I would help her with that too. Like my second ex, for example, due to PCOS she lost a lot of blood during her cycles and I ended up taking care of her for few months. If someone were to ask me what would I do for a girl I am dating prior to my dating my second ex, this particular type of help would have never crossed my mind, but it happened. Similarly with a different girl I might run into some other things I can help her with which I can't know until I see her.



January said:


> The group I just signed up to volunteer with requires two hours a week. Last year I was a part of a group that volunteered at the local shelter and we were there for about two hours a week as well, a little more or less depending on how many dogs were there. (I didn't go much because of my SA, which I regret now.) There are definitely groups that require much more commitment, but in general I find people who are willing to donate their time for free tend to be reasonably friendly/kind people.


I guess I don't really want to sign up for homeless shelter, because I see too many homeless begging for money on the street and I am rather tired of them. As far as animal shelter I would sign up for no-kill one since I actually support its cause: I don't think any animals should be killed. But the problem is that I was bitten by a dog when I was 6 so I am afraid of dogs ever since. If there is a way for me to be only taking care of cats and not dealing with dogs then I might consider it: I actually like cats a lot (I had a cat back in Russia and she was super soft and I ended up liking all cats ever since). As far as other kinds of volunteer work I remember back in high school my mom took me for few days backpacking trip where we were volunteering in helping someone to catch butterflies for his biology Ph.D. project. I guess I don't like killing part (I was actually trying not to kill those butterflies and someone actually caught me and told me to kill them) but I guess something similar some science project thing would be a good thing to volunteer for. But that would beg the question: why would volunteering for science project help me to connect any better than simply working with graduate students here on campus?



January said:


> You're right, I've just seen you mention that you're busy with schoolwork sometimes so I assumed you might not have time to attend every meeting or activity. Sorry if I was wrong.


You were right. I might not show up for every activity. The only thing I was surprised about is your reassuring me they won't kick me out, so I was like "why would I think that they would? Its not like I am disturbing anything by not showing up"



January said:


> Moving around more often would probably be a better idea, a year in each church sounds way too long for just "trying" a church. When I was younger and my family was trying out churches after a move, we'd try a place for 2-4 weeks before deciding.


Yeah I will try to do that. I guess its time to move from Messianic churches and Church of God to the Adventist church.



January said:


> The other advantage to moving around more is you're going to be "the new person" more, so you might get approached by greeters more often. Do you think your body language or facial expressions might be giving people the impression that you don't want to be approached? Because it seems strange that you haven't been greeted by anyone at any of the churches you've tried.


Yes my body language and facial expression is definitely off, which is evident not just in church but how people react to me in general. But that goes back to what I was saying about others helping me out. To give you an example, one problem with my facial expression is that I don't smile. But you see when I talk to someone and they are clearly interested in conversation then I do smile, so its a cycle: they don't talk to me because I don't smile and I don't smile because they don't talk to me. Today, I was in the mall, and some woman -- who was 50 -- was bored and decided to talk to me. Even though I obviously have no interest in dating 50 year old, I talked to her for good half an hour since I knew that was the only interaction I would ever have any time soon. I was smiling as I was talking to her. Then when I was finally done talking, I walked into Barnes and Noble and I caught myself that I smiled at the woman who was greeting customers and she smiled back. Now that is highly unusual for me that I actually smiled at her without even having to remind myself to do it! Well thats what happens when people actually talk to me. And thats why I feel that others should talk to me more in order for me to come off as more sociable person.

But in any case in the past churches people did greed me but I guess due to my lack of social skills I didn't respond properly. What happened in Church of Christ is that I walked a little late when they already started a service, but the girl said hello to me as if she was going to talk. I figured that talking during the service is not appropriate, so I didn't respond. Then a couple of days later I was talking to a 60 year old man about his thoughts about physics, and some other girl kept standing there clearly waiting to talk to me, but that man totally ignored her. I was really wanting to switch conversation from that man to that girl, which would have been easy, but I felt too shy to do it: I was thinking what would that man think when he sees me do it? Clearly "he" ignores her, so will he think I am stupid that I talk to her? And so I ended up not talking to her. On the other hand, if I take the instances where people greet me and I DO reciprocate, what usually happens is that I find some way or other to start talking about my Asperger and complaining, which would drive them off. I guess to my credit there is ONE church where I "didn't" start talking about Asperger: it is United Church of God where I am going right now, and in this church there are three people that do talk to me on a consistent basis (but other than those three people others don't). But I can't really get much out of it when it comes to dating because those people are married and much older than me. So maybe I should change churches like you suggested.


----------



## k_wifler (Sep 27, 2006)

@causalset



> Why can't girls actually CHOOSE socially anxious guy over the confident one?


The shifty nature of anxiety is a very very reliable signal for hidden purpose or unpredictable action. Desperation is the clue in detecting a "crazed lunatic" with their shifty eyes and their stressed demeanor. It's never their fault, it's simply evolutionary reasoning that repels people, from, for instance, getting robbed by a pickpocket, or being mugged. A lot of different forms and causes of anxiety cause the same behavioral signals, and most of those causes are forms of danger. So really, the only recourse any of us have, to be realistic, is to mask our insecurities and try to imitate someone who seems confident in order to be perceived as confident, because confidence is an evolutionary signal that tells people that you are carefree and calm and have no big issues. I finally managed to mask my anxiety... and it works...

I'm not saying that anyone should avoid people who they know only have social anxiety disorder. That would be stupid. It would be basically calling themselves animals, like a dog or a rat. That's partly why I am open minded toward overweight girls, since there's always the possibility that she'll change her ways and decide to eat healthy and slim down... oh wait...
I mean really, are we to seriously sit back and claim to let nature decide how we are to evolve as a species? I should hope not!



> If all other factors are equal, and I have to choose between desperate girl and the confident one, then I would choose the desperate one.


This is actually correct. Another one of those odd opposite attractions that men and women find so offensive about each other. Males want a desperate woman, females want a confident man. The desperation gives the man a bigger feeling of responsibility and accomplishment, while the confidence gives the woman a greater feeling of security and satisfaction. Again, this is another basic evolutionary aspect which has become altogether obsolete in modern societies. I, just as it is with the majority of males, instinctively find bigger stronger more confident women to be quite undesirable. Also, a woman is going to be more controlling of a beta male, more BOSSY, because she is a woman, she sees dominance as a stabilizing influence, while males see dependence as a stabilizing influence.

While I wish that sexual traits were imaginary or imposed by society, it's absolutely not sexism, in fact, sexism arises FROM and perpetuates real gender derived traits, not the other way around.
@WillYouStopDave


> Did it ever occur to you that it might be because there are a lot of disadvantages to such a relationship?
> 
> Let's say (for example) that you put up an ad for a room mate and a homeless person wants to move in with you without paying any of the bills. Now of course you just know that's not gonna work out. You're not a mean person. It doesn't mean you hate homeless people. You just don't have the resources or the desire to support someone who can't support themselves.


Wow this is a very reaching idea, and verging on lunacy, to be honest. A person with anxiety is like a homeless guy who responds to your ad for a roommate? I assume you mean that a desperate person isn't going to have any love to give or any ability to return the generosity of their partner??????? That's totally ridiculous, utter nonsense, sorry but you should just erase it all in embarrassment.

Sorry dave or whatever your name is, but, your statements read as a very anti-humanitarian and hypersensitive individual who needs years of therapy to resolve their issues. Yeah, a lot of women in modern society are that way because society made them that way. These, I assume, are not women who would be seen as desirable by most males anyway, so their issues don't need to be addressed here.
@causalset


> Why not? Isn't needy and clingy the exact ingredients of the deep love? Why don't they want to feel needed rather than to feel like they are the third wheel or something?


Really, these people giving you answers, being from a social anxiety forum, lack practical answers to such questions. The simplest explanation is that everyone has their own social formula, their own love style, and often time, that is the main factor to make or break a relationship. In many cases, such as soldiers, they marry before shipping out, then divorce after being home for a while. Their relationship was based on NOT spending time together. A fantasy.



> And this proves my point. What would hitting on a guy who is in a relationship lead to?


You have to understand that women want different things out of dating than men do on the superficial level. Women often prefer to chat and flirt as their primary way to get close and comfortable with someone, while men often respond best to more serious conversations or practical activities. A woman is thus more likely to approach a man who seems like he's ready to flirt and chitchat.



> The main reason I wouldn't want a homeless move in is that who knows what kind of diseases he would infect my room with.


Sorry but that is a somewhat bigoted viewpoint you have there. You should be more worried about the sexual activity level, as that is the primary method by which people attain and spread scary diseases that you wouldn't want. Plus if they have a room, they no longer sleep in they gutters with the cats and rats, and their disease threat level becomes average.



> So doesn't making me happ-IER worth something?


It's just a romanticism. It's the same state of mind people get into when they go to a bulk warehouse store to buy food. "OH I CAN'T EAT ALL THAT!" You know? There is no absolute happy or not happy, that's just a fuzzy logic interpretation of whether your partner meets your minimum expectations. I think by many of your examples, you seem to choose women with huge egos who want to control you like a robot or a dog. "BE HAPPY!" "SIT!" "GOOD BOY!"



littleghost said:


> There's a fine line between needing someone and being needy.


This is a good example of the point I made before. @littleghost goes on to describe someone with serious emotional issues and is extremely manipulative and controlling because of those issues, and if someone calls that person 'clingy' they are being incredibly polite.



littleghost said:


> People should be able to love each other and still have their own separate lives with their own interests and platonic relationships.


Again, another sign that this person isn't a credible voice on the subject of relationships. There is not interactive standard. People absolutely should not be forced to live separate lives or have separate interests, but if it works that way, nobody has any right to meddle with it. Don't give in to pop-psych perpetuated ideals of relationships. They're the least common of all relationship types.



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Instead of justifying being undesirable, make yourself desirable.


In case you haven't noticed it yet, causalset, this message is a trend among people who get it. Stop freaking out about external stimuli. Define goals and behaviors based on introspection, and respect that people are the way they are, individually. Yes, a lot of advice is good as a basic guideline and basic reference, but everyone's a little different, and you could find someone who is exactly the opposite to what your reference material states. I realize you're impatient to be in a relationship again, but it makes you freak out, seriously, that's what your posts are really about, you're freakin. Calm yourself and get back to basics. Science everything.

What @realisticandhopeful said was pretty good, but I get where you're coming from on this issue. You are pretty-much in a position to have a good relationship, but you don't have all of the necessary mental tools to make yourself feel confident in your ability to find and attract a suitable partner. It's obvious to me that what realisticandhopeful's post is about is exactly what you're doing when you post to this forum, and it's a shame that people don't get that. You're different, though, most people really are just ranting about how life sucks on here. I feel some similarity in that, as I have disease related issues that I have no ability or responsibility to change by myself, and expecting it is unreasonable in the extreme.



causalset said:


> I do contemplate of seeing them for therapy without meds. But then this just begs the question: what advice would they be able to give me that you can't think of? Is there some extra dimension they would tell me about?


I bet it's not about advice. Anxiety can be seen either chemically or behaviorally. Behavior, in this case, is how you perceive the world and what you feel about your perceptions. Therapy, in this case, would be more of a way of keeping yourself on track, just like the scientific method makes it easier to do science, a confident thinking method makes it easier to be confident. Ultimately you have to push through the head-games and assimilate a healthy emotional balance.


----------



## k_wifler (Sep 27, 2006)

> So why can't she like the fact that I am a physicist while I like the fact that I am such a loser and she helps me not be; and still we both like "something" so its win/win.


So you tell your gf's daily that you are a big loser? That's a turnoff right there. Sounds a lot like my dad, but he actually is a big idiot... so... yeah... if you belittle your accomplishments, you are also marginalizing her appreciation for your accomplishments, which serves to devalue her opinions, which is insulting. A partner should, or probably should, never ever want to admit that you are a loser, at least not seriously, even if it's true. You may as well pack up all of those ideas of self worth right now and throw them overboard. Don't impress to impress, you have that covered by your educational status, and anything else she likes about you, instead, give her a compliment back...

As for me, I have some impressive qualities of my own, but my negatives are very loudly berated by the majority of women I've ever heard speak on the subject, so you should count yourself lucky. Stop arguing with the woman and let her say her piece, it is a very satisfying feeling for a woman to feel that she's said her piece.



KILOBRAVO said:


> just be aware that a desperate person also means that that person can be more likely to be unfaithful and disrespectful to you.


causalset, it may be worth noting that people often get tripped up on the terminology. For instance, a bad person may use a theatrical representation of desperation, such as begging for food or water, or saying they're broke and bla bla bla.... These are people who use the bad luck of their situation to manipulate people into doing things for them, when they aren't actually having bad luck, it's actually their preferred lifestyle. That's not the same desperation that I think you're thinking of, though I think it's what KILOBRAVO was thinking of.



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> You're obviously a smart guy, but sometimes intelligent people get in their own way. Trying to justify desperation is not the answer here. Focus on your true passion (physics), and everything else should come organically.


I think the problem here is that Pumpkin doesn't relate to the fact that anxiety causes us to be repelled by the object of our desirable. This is a regulatory anxiety that can, for instance, help a fat person lose weight by fearing the chocolate cupcake as though it were a piece of fat. In the same way that this mechanism often causes the fat person to dwell on the chocolate cupcake, and overthink the dilemma of the chocolate cupcake, it can also cause a person with social anxiety to over-think their interactions with other people. Thinking about the cupcake, or other people as an object of desire, will only make you more desperate, which will make you more anxious, and that can cause you to break down and make mistakes that could be potentially damaging.



WillYouStopDave said:


> I think you're not really thinking about what you're saying here. Or what allowing someone to live with you actually entails.


LOL I really hope dave is joking. Only someone with no self control, who can't identify criminally manipulative behavior, and is extremely emotionally hypersensitive and has very low self esteem would ever make these mistakes.
If you are in this situation, you just have to remember the facts. There is a food bank nearby where the person can go any time it is open, where they'll give the person all the food they could ever want. No one in that situation ever has a responsibility to share a single morsel or tidbit with anyone.
A criminally insane person like dave's homeless beggar is, of course, going to become angry when rejected, which could make the person unpredictable. It's not simply that the person is desperate, as sit-coms and survival dramas will have you believe. LOL dave, please stop living in fantasy land for a minute. :um And jeez, of course everyone has problems. If you aren't emotionally mature enough to respect your partner's problems, then you will always suffer in a relationship. Your parents are enablers then? My dad is. You aren't solely responsible for being dependent on your parents. You should seek help. I had to go to the vocational rehabilitation branch of the government for help.



causalset said:


> When I googled CBT it says "cognitive behavioral therapy". Is this what you mean? If so, is there a way I can get it cheap?


As far as I know, it's the most expensive program of any psych program there is available. Is there a food bank near you? In my town, they will give anyone food.



causalset said:


> That one line that they are not ready for the relationship is what confuse me the most. How can you speak for other people?


You are exactly right. AllTheSame is spewing nonsense generally caused by fear of commitment and avoidance of responsibility. This is a case where _the pot usually calls the kettle_ not ready for a relationship. It's not that the other person isn't ready, it's that AllTheSame isn't ready to deal with all of those issues. It makes good sense, but again, it's stated in a very poor way that makes logical thinkers get confused sometimes. He doesn't have the relationship social/emotional skills to handle someone with those sorts of issues, and he has no intention to ever develop those skills. There's really no way to say that he's wrong in his viewpoint, and it is quite a common view, but it in no way reflects on the person they're judging. I learned that the hard way. Your disappointment in AllTheSame's lack of awareness and reasoning is understandable, but he'll just take it as a provocation because he doesn't get it himself.



causalset said:


> *Focus on your true passion (physics), and everything else should come organically.*
> Thats the other line I heard, and I didn't understand why do they assume that the fact that I am a physicist negates the fact that I have normal human needs too?


Here's another common statement that isn't quite logically clear. Since, as I stated above, anxiety often pushes us away from the object of our desire, you can focus on your passion and still not get a girl, because you (right?) have a disorder, you're not natural in the way that people assume everyone is, yet this saying has an element of truth in that you should stop worrying about what if something bad happens and simply keep pushing forward. It's a difficult concept for people to get across because people are so instinctive/"organic."

As I've seen twice now, you should probably take Atheism's views with a heavy dose of salt. It's obvious that they're based on a very limited cursory understanding of relationship mechanics, and a very limited perspective, the female perspective, which is in itself not a bad thing...

Speaking of good vibes, > I've noticed that women find me much more attractive when I'm feeling the sexuality vibes deep in my core. Even if I act scared and cowardly, they seem to be itching to tear my clothes off and whatever. When males feel their sexuality, it causes the male body to go into hormone production mode, which women are very receptive to. Or it could be some kind of psychic wave that activates female desire.



Paul said:


> I don't hide my social anxiety from anyone. I don't hide it because I'm not desperate, I want to filter out anyone who isn't compatible with me.


Haha, so desperate. >



TheWelshOne said:


> Also, as much as it pains me to agree with AllTheSame on something, when people say 'ready for a relationship' in that sense, it generally means 'mentally/emotionally mature enough' i.e. not desperate.


And this is in direct response to a perception of another person, not necessarily the truth about the person. But it's normal for people to oversimplify things in order to label each other with stereotypes...



rm123 said:


> Shyness I can sympathise with, but desperation is always a turn-off.
> 
> Confidence makes someone funnier, more attractive, more relaxing to be around, and less likely to be rolling in self-pity because they feel entitled to girl's attention & bitter for not getting it


Sorry to demolish your world view there rm123, but shyness and desperation typically go hand-in-hand. That's the only type of handholding that they will get, apparently.
Actually, at least at the professional level, according to a scientific study I read recently, you're completely wrong about confident people being funnier. In fact, people who were less emotionally stable, especially people who were depressed and suicidal, were perceived as funnier, and gained more fame and popularity. Haha, it's funny how sometimes the most common sense sounding stuff can be completely wrong and lead to a lot of terrible relationships!



May19 said:


> Personally for me, it's not that the desperation is necessarily bad. It's that a relationship that comes out of desperation isn't meaningful. ...


Honestly, your whole post is refreshingly uncommon. People date because dating is part of modern culture, not because they want to find The One. On the other hand, if everyone had to have a deep personal connection to spend time together, we would always be locked away in our rooms cowering from each other... oh wait...


----------



## k_wifler (Sep 27, 2006)

AllTheSame said:


> I just want to add something I left out in my first post.....a lot of people are in love with the idea of being in love. If you don't know the difference between being in love, and being in love with the idea, then imo you are going to have your heart broken or you're going to break someone else's heart. They are not, not, not the same thing. And you are really hurting anyone you're in a relationship with, just because you are in love with the idea of being "with someone". That is a really horrible, awful thing to do to another human being just for your own emotional satisfaction / well being.


True, it's good to make sure you're not fantasizing about something just because it's a fantasy... like... Prince Charming rescuing the Princess... unfortunately... Although, most people do need meaningless human proximity, which means that the conclusion of this quote is impossible to apply in practical terms.



caveman8 said:


> Yes. And the confident person is willing to make mistakes. One thing causalset is doing, evident from many of his posts, and I'm sure a lot of us here including myself have been guilty of, is trying to figure out everything in advance in an attempt to avoid mistakes - which you simply cannot do.


Exactly right!
Although I have never thought of myself as particularly confident, as no one ever told me I seemed confident, I have always boldly gone out into the field to research my area of interest in any way that I can. Seems that causalset also does this from time to time...



Raies said:


> Thank you...
> This is just what I think every time I see this kind of threads. Pretty much a perfect summary.


If dialog never helped anyone, then therapists would be out of a job. It's not pointless at all.



causalset said:


> I just don't understand why it has to be a choice anyway. Why can't I have both needs at the same time without either of them being secondary?


Ahaha, another person whose comments you should take with a grain of salt... It's obvious to me that PumpkinCheesecake has been taken in by the corporate communist ideal of the duty and honor of having a career of serving the master and all of that nonsense that really isn't true. Sure, you can pursue as much or as little as you want. A lot of women idealize the figure of a man who can provide for them, aka, a housewife, aka, a voluntary leach and drain on society. This type of person is going to stress that your career is the most important above all else, even though, in reality, generalization of job skills is more advantageous than specialization, unless your end employment goal is guaranteed. Although feminine traits are more conducive toward communist and socialist ideals, so women are more easily sucked into it...

What you're asking is the result of another miscommunication! It actually means that, given the choice between pursuing one or the other, assuming limited time and resources, you would want to pick option A vs option B... In this scenario, you can't choose both...



causalset said:


> That is one of the main things I disagree with. I mean, logically, if I am desperate to do X, this would imply that I am a lot more likely to do X than someone else thats less desperate. But this is something that others don't seem to be buying. So how is it possible to be desperate to do something yet NOT do it any more than someone else who is less desperate?


The reason most people develop a desperation is out of difficulty of attainment. If you're in the desert, you may discover that it's easy to become desperate for water and shade. In practical real-world applications, it is common sense to give someone who is desperate for water a drink... but in social systems, people are generally so corrupt and insecure that they won't see how obvious and common-sense it really is.



causalset said:


> His behavior is the EXACT way I been acting with various girls from dating sites


Haha, that doesn't surprise me. That's human nature for someone who is inexperienced. It's also human nature for an immature person to avoid someone based purely on their first impression of them, but again, the world is full of immature and inexperienced people running amok. Luckily I had studied this behavior before doing it, so I knew not to. 0 Like that one move where the guy takes his new girlfriend out to see a porno flick for their first date. ROFL.



January said:


> Okay, here's where I think your problem is. It really sounds like, and I don't mean this cruelly because I think it's something plenty of us with SA struggle with, you don't have much of a life.


So what you're basically saying is, is that women with social anxiety should date men with social anxiety because neither of them are likely to have lives, so they're a better match??? Have you ever heard of a traditional marriage??? I mean, they're less common now, but surely they're not _that _rare yet??? I find that view of relationships to be rather self centered and a bit arrogant, really. A relationship is about how you feel about them when you are _with _your partner, not about their reputation or status when you are apart.

**ran out of steam.....**


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

k_wifler said:


> I think the problem here is that Pumpkin doesn't relate to the fact that anxiety causes us to be repelled by the object of our desirable. This is a regulatory anxiety that can, for instance, help a fat person lose weight by fearing the chocolate cupcake as though it were a piece of fat. In the same way that this mechanism often causes the fat person to dwell on the chocolate cupcake, and overthink the dilemma of the chocolate cupcake, it can also cause a person with social anxiety to over-think their interactions with other people. Thinking about the cupcake, or other people as an object of desire, will only make you more desperate, which will make you more anxious, and that can cause you to break down and make mistakes that could be potentially damaging.


Jesus that is a lot that you typed up, but I used to have extreme anxiety and the way that I got over it was to put myself out there continuously. The ironic part though is that most people wouldn't be willing to do that because it seems so scary if you're not used to it.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

k_wifler said:


> Ahaha, another person whose comments you should take with a grain of salt... It's obvious to me that PumpkinCheesecake has been taken in by the corporate communist ideal of the duty and honor of having a career of serving the master and all of that nonsense that really isn't true. Sure, you can pursue as much or as little as you want. A lot of women idealize the figure of a man who can provide for them, aka, a housewife, aka, a voluntary leach and drain on society. This type of person is going to stress that your career is the most important above all else, even though, in reality, generalization of job skills is more advantageous than specialization, unless your end employment goal is guaranteed. Although feminine traits are more conducive toward communist and socialist ideals, so women are more easily sucked into it...


You're a virgin aren't you? And your passion in life should be your main focus IMO, maybe one day you can find something to put your heart and soul (and maybe even penis) into.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

k_wifler said:


> LOL I really hope dave is joking. Only someone with no self control, who can't identify criminally manipulative behavior, and is extremely emotionally hypersensitive and has very low self esteem would ever make these mistakes.
> If you are in this situation, you just have to remember the facts. There is a food bank nearby where the person can go any time it is open, where they'll give the person all the food they could ever want. No one in that situation ever has a responsibility to share a single morsel or tidbit with anyone.
> A criminally insane person like dave's homeless beggar is, of course, going to become angry when rejected, which could make the person unpredictable. It's not simply that the person is desperate, as sit-coms and survival dramas will have you believe. LOL dave, please stop living in fantasy land for a minute. :um And jeez, of course everyone has problems. If you aren't emotionally mature enough to respect your partner's problems, then you will always suffer in a relationship. Your parents are enablers then? My dad is. You aren't solely responsible for being dependent on your parents. You should seek help. I had to go to the vocational rehabilitation branch of the government for help.


 The point is that someone who is desperate probably has some pretty big problems that they either haven't acknowledged or haven't been able to fix. And people who find themselves being approached by people who seem really desperate are probably not all that inclined to want to find out exactly what those problems are.

Someone who will look at you and say "I have the right to a date" or "I have the right to an answer as to why you won't go out with me" has pretty much answered their own question. If a person really believes they're just automatically entitled to love, romance and sex from anyone they desire, they've got big problems.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> You're a virgin aren't you? And your passion in life should be your main focus IMO, maybe one day you can find something to put your heart and soul (and maybe even penis) into.


I realize you were speaking to k_wifler, but I am sure when people give similar advice to me the underlying concept is the same. So why are you making connnection between someone being a virgin and telling someone to focus on their career? If career was objectively more important, that person wouldn't have to be virgin in order to get that advise from you. So are you saying you are making some sort of judgement on virgin people as in virgin people don't deserve a relationship or something?


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> I realize you were speaking to k_wifler, but I am sure when people give similar advice to me the underlying concept is the same. So why are you making connnection between someone being a virgin and telling someone to focus on their career? If career was objectively more important, that person wouldn't have to be virgin in order to get that advise from you. So are you saying you are making some sort of judgement on virgin people as in virgin people don't deserve a relationship or something?


Not at all, he made some disparaging remarks about me, so I had a little fun at his expense. Anyway, you're still overthinking this way too much. Complaining on the internet will do nothing for you, being proactive is the answer here, and I think that deep down you know this.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> The point is that someone who is desperate probably has some pretty big problems that they either haven't acknowledged or haven't been able to fix. And people who find themselves being approached by people who seem really desperate are probably not all that inclined to want to find out exactly what those problems are.


I DO acknoledge my problems and its pretty easy to find out what they are: just ask me! And thats people's main mistake right there: they don't believe that I have an inside into my own problems, so instead of asking me directly they look for secondary sources. For example, my first ex picked up some Asperger books and decided I shouldn't be taken to where its loud because the books say that people with Asperger Syndrome have sensory issues. I was telling her over and over not all symptoms with Asperger apply to everyone but to no avail.

Now I realize thats not the type of issues you are talking about. But here is a general concept: I do know what my issue are and I am not in any kind of denial: in fact I love to talk about them as you might have seen. So if people were to simply believe this one thing then any and all worries they have can be addressed by simply asking me!



WillYouStopDave said:


> Someone who will look at you and say "I have the right to a date" or "I have the right to an answer as to why you won't go out with me" has pretty much answered their own question. If a person really believes they're just automatically entitled to love, romance and sex from anyone they desire, they've got big problems.


I don't think I am entitled to any and every girl I meet. What I think is that I am entitled for the same type of chance that others have. In other words, I want girls to look at other traits that have nothing to do with Asperger and judge me based on those. Sure, some girls would reject me for not being strong enough, or for being Christian, or Jewish or immigrant, etc. But thats fine since there are other girls that like those things. But when it comes to Asperger which is universally disliked then I have no choice but insist that girls overlook it since apparently going to another girl isn't an answer.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

How you think determines how you feel - that triggers chemistry


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

@causalset, have you ever tried to look at this from a more scientific point of view? I'm no expert so this may blow up in my face but I'll take the risk anyway.

In Physics is it more useful to understand the laws and how they manifest in reality or to complain about them and how they should work differently because you'd prefer it that way?

If it would be more useful to accept reality and then use that understanding to your benefit (which I'm hoping is your response) why don't you take that approach in the rest of your life? Why don't they this, why don't they that, because they don't have to, what now? It's fine to think about these things, but you can't just stay at that stage if you actually want to solve the problem.

Accept what is, don't get so caught up in what should be and decide whether "what is" is worth the effort. If it is try your best to make said effort and if it isn't try your best to move forward in spite of it.


----------



## caveman8 (Sep 3, 2012)

causalset said:


> Well everyone needs help with something. I can't possibly know what abstract girl would need my help with, thats why I only talk about what she can help me with. But once I get to know her I would find what she needs help and then I would help her with that too. Like my second ex, for example, due to PCOS she lost a lot of blood during her cycles and I ended up taking care of her for few months. If someone were to ask me what would I do for a girl I am dating prior to my dating my second ex, this particular type of help would have never crossed my mind, but it happened. Similarly with a different girl I might run into some other things I can help her with which I can't know until I see her.
> 
> But in any case in the past churches people did greed me but I guess due to my lack of social skills I didn't respond properly. What happened in Church of Christ is that I walked a little late when they already started a service, but the girl said hello to me as if she was going to talk. I figured that talking during the service is not appropriate, so I didn't respond. Then a couple of days later I was talking to a 60 year old man about his thoughts about physics, and some other girl kept standing there clearly waiting to talk to me, but that man totally ignored her. I was really wanting to switch conversation from that man to that girl, which would have been easy, but I felt too shy to do it: I was thinking what would that man think when he sees me do it? Clearly "he" ignores her, so will he think I am stupid that I talk to her? And so I ended up not talking to her.


Anyone can help with the thing you mentioned, or anything else like that. That would be expected if in a relationship anyway.

You could have talked to both. Ask her thoughts on something physics-related to try to pull her into the conversation. Or change the subject if needed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

realisticandhopeful said:


> What do people get from these threads? Yes you're frustrated, but noone is suddenly gonna become attracted to desperation. You can't force yourself to be attracted to what you're not attracted to. On this board so many blame society, girls, looks, height everyone and everything because they feel powerless. If you had a girlfriend you'd still feel like ****. Wherever you go there you are.
> 
> Put the focus on feeling better about yourself. Meds, therapy, work, school, hobbies, get your life together and then you'll be attractive to someone else. If you try 1 thing and it doesn't work try another. Try 10 or 20 don't give up on yourself. It's hard work to get better, but focusing on yourself and seeking the help you need is the only way. Otherwise you'll be on this board at 70 still complaining that people should change for you when you won't put the effort to change yourself.
> 
> I'm sorry but I specifically decided to allow myself one blunt post. Noone is gonna change for you. You put all that energy thinking about other people into working on yourself. Social anxiety isn't fair. None of us deserve this. But it's our responsibility as adults to do what we can to create a better life for ourselves. Thems the cards kids. Take it or leave it. Or keep complaining about **** that will never happen. And with that here I am giving advice that won't be listened to. That's my cue to leave.


Nahh, I really like what you say here, well a few people that think similar to you and me will agree as well.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Hmm, a few desperate guys have tried to get with me and their only offer was sex. Wow, what a complete turn off. Wait actually, when I was taking prozac I wanted sex too, so in a way I was very desperate on the medication myself. I would actually get turned off if someone didn't want to have sex with me ASAP. But since I changed my mind about stuff, now desperation from other guys which involves sex offers is a complete turn off. I don't want just that, I want friendship and then we will see, but there is no quickie in sight, except when I get real lonely during my horny nights and swear in desperation that I will let him do me next time we meet. No, then I feel better the next day and we are friends again, lol. Confident guys also offer me sex and I don't want it. Guys can be either confident or desperate but as long as they don't offer me sex then I will take a chance to get to know them. So, it depends what turns on the women you want, do they get turned on when a desperate guy wants just sex, or when a confident guy wants just sex, or does she get turned off if they don't offer her sex. Yes, it's pretty confusing to try to read people and limit the risks of making mistakes and losing someone, my condolences.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

January said:


> Okay, here's where I think your problem is. It really sounds like, and I don't mean this cruelly because I think it's something plenty of us with SA struggle with, you don't _have_ much of a life. You have your education, and&#8230; that's about it, apparently. Average people will have friends, hobbies, clubs, volunteer work, something else going on in their life that gives them joy/pleasure.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for a girl to "change your entire life" implies that you're going to become needy and dependent on her for all your social interactions, since you don't have anyone else. That isn't appealing (and can border on creepy depending on how it presents), because unless she's in the exact same situation as you, she's already going to _have_ a life and things she wants to do, including things you won't be included in or things you just aren't interested in. On the other hand, look at the more confident (or more social, or whatever) person, who is going to have at least some level of friendships and/or activities outside of the relationship and therefore seems, at least at face value, less likely to become clingy and jealous. A healthy relationship isn't one where you two are each other's entire worlds.
> 
> I really think you should pick a volunteer organization and/or a club and commit. Most volunteer organizations and shelters are pretty much always looking for volunteers. Most clubs won't kick you out if you're busy with schoolwork and have to miss a meeting. You've mentioned you're a Christian, so find a church in your area to go to regularly (even if you just pick the one with the most women). I'm not saying you need to do those things for six months before looking for a girlfriend, but at least try to do them at the same time, you know? Start building a life of your own so you can "bring something to the table" in terms of a relationship.


That's a good point, when I first got in a relationship, I was super clingy and jealous when he was hanging out with his friends. Like everything he was doing, I wanted to be with him 24/7, my very soul was in turmoil like a tiny boat on an unruly sea. He was better off because he already had years of experience with friends and so much that I never even had the chance to start for myself. And yeah, pretty much I went from A to Z, way too fast. That's not a healthy way to be, but hey you learn, and then you're able to live your life and treat others better, and you feel better too when you are faced with the same situation again and are able to make better choices for both of you.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> This would be only on the first step but I hope for this to change throughout our relationship. Here is one scenario on how it might change. So she introduces me to her friends; then, after I become good friends with her friends, I start seeing them without always having her around, and then her friends would introduce me to their friends, and those would then be my friends rather than hers (since she wasn't around when they introduced me to them) and then I have my own network of friends! My main problem is that I "can't get the foot through the door", but if I were to have a girlfriend she would help me get through this stage.


No lol, if you become friends with her friends which would most likely be females, she would think you don't like her! No, maybe she won't think much of it if she is mature enough to handle a healthy relationship. So then if she has any male friends, try befriending them instead and then the males will introduce you to their friends which if there are any females you should choose to befriend these female friends instead of your girlfriend's female friends. When I first got into a relationship I was also thinking about befriending his friends and that is so wrong. I don't even like those people, when I was through with him I told him that I am going to find my own people to befriend. You have to find them yourself in a way, not use someone else to get them. I don't know but that's just how I feel, but sure if some guy I hang out with introduces me to his male or female friends, I will take the chance to get to know them too but it's a little easier if you're just friends with her and get to know her friends and then you fall for one of her friends, haha. Well, it could happen. Good luck ya'll.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

causalset said:


> Okay the pattern with me has been as follows:
> 1) first I was desperate,
> 2) then someone takes me out of desperate situation,
> 3) then I think "all of my problems are solved, I can now relax and do what I want"
> ...


 There's your problem, causal. Look at 2). "Someone takes me out of a desperate situation".

Whatever they did to take you out of your desperation cost them emotional effort. They spent effort on you. When people give their time and effort to you to help you, they do it because they have a need too. In fact, they expect you to spend at least as much emotional effort on filling their needs.

Autism is based in the root word 'auto' meaning 'self'. We spectrum dwellers see the world from the perspective of 'self' . NTs can put themselves into another person's perspective seamlessly. It is natural for them to see the world from the other person's perspective; they mirror others' feelings in their heads and sense the others' needs.

It is much more difficult for us to do that. We can't always see the other person's needs. But they are there, as proven by our friendless track records. People dump us because we do not pay them back for helping us meet our needs, by helping them meet their needs.

So someone might have a need to help people because he needs to feel appreciated. When he can't see any sign of recognition of his effort, he begins to feel ripped-off. This does not need to happen too many times before the 'someone' who takes you out of the desperate situation, begins to feel unappreciated and used. They dump you when they feel that way, because it hurts their feelings.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> @causalset, have you ever tried to look at this from a more scientific point of view? I'm no expert so this may blow up in my face but I'll take the risk anyway.
> 
> In Physics is it more useful to understand the laws and how they manifest in reality or to complain about them and how they should work differently because you'd prefer it that way?
> 
> ...


Its funny that you mentioned the way I treat physics as an example of what I "should be" doing when, ironically enough, I was making exact mistake in physics as I now do socially, and my arguments with physicists about physics totally parallel my arguments right now about girls -- which is the main reason why I am back to school instead of being a professor by now which I should have been.

So in quantum field theory they were using various mathematical symbols that weren't supposed to have any meaning at all, you were to just pretend that they do, make some symbol manipulation, and you get the right answer. I couldn't accept that, especially since the rules of manipulating those symbols totally contradicted the rules that apply to other symbols whose meaning I DO know. A good example is Grassmann numbers whose rules of integration are totally different from rules of integration of regular numbers. I know why the integrals over regular numbers obey certain rules and I love them, but then they tell me to "just accept" that there are Grassmann numbers whose integration rules completely contradict the integration rules over regular numbers, and they don't tell me why other than this would give me the right answer, and they are telling me to just accept it. Well of course I can't just accept it. And this wasn't the only example. There are several other examples in field theory I have to "just accept".

Anyway, long story short, I ended up not doing the projects I was supposed to be doing and instead I ended up spending all my time trying to "construct" Grassmann numbers among other things so that they obey the rules that they postulate not just because those are "rules" but as outcomes of my "constructions". My constructions kept not working, but I kept thinking "okay they almost work, so let me spend just few more days, once I see they work then I will get to their project" but then within those few days I find that they were wrong for some reason or other and have to start over again. So I ended up in a situation where my advisor refused working with me and I got a note that I would be expelled from Physics department unless I find a different advisor within few months. No one wanted to be my advisor because they spread bad reputation about me that I am not making any progress -- and when I was telling them that I wasn't just wasting my time I was obsessing about those questions, they didn't care, they just kept telling me "bottom line: you made no progress" and they didn't care why.

And then I had the same exact situation as right now with girls: I was wondering why don't any professor take me on because I am "desperate so that they won't expell me". I was telling people that I would pick a project that doesn't involve any of the concepts I was stuck on and would do just fine. At times the professors did consider taking me, but then when I started dwelling on the things I did they said "well you are not interested in what I am doing so I won't take you" and I was asking "if you so care about me that YOU are telling ME as to what I am interested in and what i am not, why don't you care about the fact that I would be EXPELLED if you don't take me" and this again parallels to my current questions about the girls: the girls are telling me I supposedly don't like them and my question to them is how can you be telling me what I feel (exact question I had for professors) and if I truly don't like (insert the blank -- either the professors or girls) what would I possibly gain by telling them that I like them? And finally, if I am desperate why don't (insert professors or girls) trust me that my desperation will drive me to change my ways?

But anyway, the very last day before they were supposed to expell me some retired professor was nice enough to actually take me on -- despite the fact that admittedly his interests had nothing to do with mine: he was doing car safety and I wanted to do quantum field theory, but he still took me on in order for them not to expel me. And then as I was working with him, I was looking for professors in other schools that would do something more similar to what I want to do so that they can "collaborate" with him in supervising me: the rules were that if there are two co-chairs of thesis committee as opposed to just one chair, then its allowed for one of the co-chairs to be in a different school (usually people don't have two co-chairs and, if they do, they are usually from the same school -- but still despite my situation not being usual it was allowed) and I needed someone from different school since none of the people who were in that school who did quantum gravity wanted to work with me. Meanwhile I had all the time I needed to find someone from different school since they weren't going to expell me now that I found ONE person from this school which is all I needed. So eventually I did find a professor from a different school, I picked a topic NOT involving any concepts I was stuck on, and I got my first Ph.D., in Physics, within subsequent three years.

In any case, eventually I DID answer the questions I was stuck on -- but I only answered them to my satisfaction few years AFTER I have received my Ph.D. I have posted the papers devoted to answering those questions on www.arxiv.org (I won't post references to those papers here since those papers have my real full name on them, but whoever is interested in reading them I can PM the links to you) But the problem with www.arxiv.org is that its not peer reviewed: as long as one of the professional scientists "endorses" me, I can post anything I feel like it, unless I post something totally crazy that would cause me to lose my "endoresemnt", whereas the way professional journals work is that each paper goes through peer review and stuff, which it doesn't on arxiv.org So in order for those papers to count towards my getting a job I have to publish them in journals, which I am trying to do. Now there are 26 papers on arxiv.org that I wrote, but only 3 of them got published in journals so far. One of the reasons for this is that my writing isn't clear, and the other one is that people just don't see motivation of why I was doing what I was doing. From my point of view motivation is clear: I used to be stuck on those things, and now that I wrote those papers I am not stuck any more! But others aren't getting it. Incidentally, last semester I ran into some person that got it. So I gave a talk on one of those papers (the one about interpretation of Grassmann numbers) for one of my classes, and after I gave a talk a TA walked up to me and asked "have you heard about supersymmetry? The thing you presented in this talk would make it a lot clearer" and I was like "yes of course I heard about supersymmetry and, in fact, supersymmetry was the exact reason why I felt compelled to answer this question!" But no one besides him ever got it. Thats why back when I was doing my first Ph.D. when I was stuck on this question and was coming to everyones offices trying to ask it, no one knew what I was asking, and right now that I finally DID answer this question and want to try and publish my answer no one sees what is the point of my publications. Well I sort of HAVE to publish it since, if I don't, this would mean I just threw 15 years of my life for nothing.

The main problem I am facing right now is that, in order to be able to become a professor in Physics, one has to have 15 or 20 publications. That would still not guarantee professorship: the competition is very tough; but then I would be on the same level as the people I am competing with. Now I have 26 papers on arxiv.org, so if only half of them was posted, at least I could "try" to apply for professorship. But you see, only 3 are posted, because most people don't see the point of what I was doing -- which is why I am back to graduate school, doing my second Ph.D. in math while the first one was in Physics. I don't actually need my Math Ph.D., its just my desperate move to stay in academia since I can't become a professor. And the main reason for why I am in this mess is precisely because I couldn't just accept the rules that are counter-intuitive the way others do. Which brings me back to your point: you were going to say "You do things just fine with physics now try the same with girls" and my response is "actually I am not doing just fine with physics, but you are right there is a perfect analogy: I messed up my physics and I messed up my relationships with girls in the same exact way -- not being willing to accept things I am told if they seem counter intuitive".


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Hmm, a few desperate guys have tried to get with me and their only offer was sex.


Thats one of the main things I don't understand. First of all, as a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage. So what I am desperate about is emotional connection, NOT sex. But, even if you put Christianity aside, I don't get how its even possible to be desperate for sex. I mean, I only became Christian when I was 22 years old. I became desperate to find a girlfriend a year earlier than that, at 21 (and that desperation continued all the way till today, and I am now 37). So this means that when I was a teenager I was an atheist. But, back in my teenage atheist days, I didn't want to find any girlfriend OR sex for that matter: I was thinking that its just a disraction from physics -- even though yes I had sexual fantasies and stuff. Then, at the age of 21, my sexual drive went DOWN (and it had nothing to do with being Christian -- I became Christian a year later, at 22, remember) and DESPITE my sexual drive going DOWN, I became desperate for finding girls. Why? Because I was emotionally hurt by being banned from a certain Asperger mailing list where I liked a certain girl (I liked her in romantic way, not sexual; and the reason for the ban had nothing to do with her) and also by being ostracized at a Jewish club my mom wanted me to go to. So due to the EMOTIONAL hurt I wanted to find a girlfriend to make me feel better about myself. A year later, at 22, I became Christian so I was against sex altogether; but this didn't change what I was desperate after. Even at the age of 21 when I wasn't Christian yet, sex still never even crossed my mind when I was obsessing about girls not liking me. The first time I had a girlfriend was at 23 so I never had sex. Now, if sex was offered to me at 21 then who knows maybe I would have had it (but thats hypothetical as it never happened) but still sex never even crossed my mind when I was obsessing about the girls not liking me. The only time when I was thinking of sex was when I was a teenager -- but back then like I said I thought of girls as waste of time and so those sexual fantasies didn't make me desperate about anything at all: I probably would have turned down a girl if she were to come after me when I was a teen since I wanted to do physics. I do have sexual fantasies now too (although less) but they are irrelevent to what I am desperate about. Its sort of like "I am desperate to find a girlfriend, and by the way I like icecream" and similarly "I am desperate to find girlfriend and by the way I like sex (although of course I can't have one as a Christian)"; totally unrelated things.

Long story short, I just don't see why you say that desperate guys want sex. To me its totally opposite. Being desperate means I want an emotional connection. I can't conceptualize being desperate after sex, whether I am Christian or not. Okay, lets put it this way: emotional connection is like BASIC food and water; sex is like some sort of LUXURY like cherry pie or something. Do you know anybody DESPERATE to eat CHERRY PIE? I don't! Do you know anybody desperate for food and water? Yes sure! That is precisely why I don't get why any guys can be desperate for sex. If I am desperate that is a good sign that it is NOT about sex.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Erroll said:


> So someone might have a need to help people because he needs to feel appreciated. *When she can't see any sign of recognition of her effort,* she begins to feel ripped-off.


Now thats what puzzles me right there. How can people say they don't see any sign of recognition of their effort, if on my end of the line I feel excited all day every day of how great it was that I ran into this person? I realize they are not mind readers, but the fact that I appreciate their effort should be LOGICALLY evident. If I am so vocal on how upset I am when I am not getting it, wouldn't it logically imply I would appreciate it when I would? So when people are "telling" me that I don't recognize or appreciate anything they do, my question is: why would then I be complaining about and upset when they don't? Thats the main thing I don't understand. I guess the reason I don't express recognition of their effort is that on my end of the line it is just as evident as the earth being round, and I am not going around telling everyone that the earth is round, which is exactly why I am not going around telling them I recognize their effort. But maybe I should remember to tell them and keep reminding myself to -- but that wouldn't be actually recognizing their effort (I recognize it regardless) rather it would be remembering to communicate it to others despite the fact that it seems self-evident on my end.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

caveman8 said:


> Anyone can help with the thing you mentioned, or anything else like that. That would be expected if in a relationship anyway.


Well in case of my second ex she kept feeling bad that I spent so much time helping her and was suggesting I go do my work and she can try and manage, but I was insisting on helping her -- and I was the only one out of all her friends and family who was helping her, everyone else abandoned her. In any case she later told me that during first four months of a relationship she wasn't in love with me yet and she fell in love when I was helping her (well I didn't know about it -- I thought she was in love since yes our relationship was exclusive and official) and on my end it was the same thing: first four months I was just thinking its good I have a girlfriend and its good she is a graduate student (as opposed to my first girlfriend who never been to college) but then during that time when I was taking care of her and she was sick, that was when I felt emotional bond towards her in particular and no one else and thats what made our relationship so special.



caveman8 said:


> You could have talked to both. *Ask her thoughts on something physics-related to try to pull her into the conversation.* Or change the subject if needed.


That provided that the girl I date actually knows physics. Well I would in fact PREFER to date a physicist, but I am not getting the kind of girls I prefer because most of them reject me. So, so far, none of them know physics (other than mathematician girl Anne with whom I was close friends for ONE WEEK in 2005 but she rejected me too). I guess I could have talked to my second ex about biology -- although in this case the problem would be that I don't know biology but I can always ask lots of questions -- but this never crossed my mind. In any case I would certainly prefer to date mathematician or physicist, or if it doesn't work then biology or chemist or anyone else in graduate school would be second best choice. But then I would have to limit my pool to my classes rather than going on dating sites. And do I really have any chance to attract someone in one of my classes if they haven't approached me so far?


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

causalset said:


> But maybe I should remember to tell them and keep reminding myself to -- but that wouldn't be actually recognizing their effort (I recognize it regardless) rather it would be remembering to communicate it to others despite the fact that it seems self-evident on my end.


I think that I know how other people feel so many times. Like I'm sure of it. But then if I discuss it with them, so often it turns out that I have the totally wrong idea. It is really hard to know what is going on in somebody else's head.

Maybe other people are like that too. They want to know for sure that they are appreciated. And the way one does it is not logical either. You can't just say "I appreciate you" because that's perceived as too nebulous and too easy for you to do, to repay them for the effort they put into you. You have to come at it sort of obliquely, so as to recognize the important specific things they did to help you. They feel appreciated when they hear exactly what they've done to make you feel better. They want you to set aside yourself for a while, and talk about how they are good for you. They want to hear you talk about them instead of yourself. That makes them happy and then they want to spend more time with you to become happy again.

I'm pretty socially stupid, but I'm pretty old too, and that's the way I see it. Love is not given freely and if it is not repaid in kind, it will fade.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Erroll said:


> I think that I know how other people feel so many times. Like I'm sure of it. But then if I discuss it with them, so often it turns out that I have the totally wrong idea. It is really hard to know what is going on in somebody else's head.


But then what about the situations when people decided that I didn't care, so they withdraw, and then I was going out of my way to tell them "yes I did care I just didn't tell you because I was shy", why do they not believe me in this case? Like you said its hard to know without my saying. But in those situation I do say, in fact repeatedly so, and I set aside HOURS of my time telling them how much I cared. So why do they still think I didn't just because I didn't tell them in the time when I should have? Do they think I have multiple personalities?


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> Which brings me back to your point: you were going to say "You do things just fine with physics now try the same with girls" and my response is "actually I am not doing just fine with physics, but you are right there is a perfect analogy: I messed up my physics and I messed up my relationships with girls in the same exact way -- not being willing to accept things I am told if they seem counter intuitive".


Even though I'm only quoting the end of your post I did read the whole thing.

Have you ever heard the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees"? It means that someone is missing the bigger point because they are focusing too much on the details, this reminds me of you (not an insult). You need to figure out what you want to ultimately achieve, and think about how to best achieve that goal, once you're able to achieve the goal you can worry about the details. So using the Grassmann numbers (just to be clear I have absolutely no idea what these are) as an example, if their explanation can be used to solve the problems they pose that's what you should accept, even if it's counter intuitive. Not that it's perfect or that you couldn't improve it but that it's good enough to solve those problems. You use their explanation so that you can progress in your life/career and if you wish you can look into the explanation in your free time, if you improve it (in a way you can prove works in practice) then you can present it and use it moving forward.

Similarly, if you want a relationship you should accept what isn't working for you and is working for others, even if it's counter intuitive. Not that it's perfect or that it couldn't be done better but that it's good enough to produce the desired results. If you can do that you'll be able to progress in your life/relationships, once you reach that stage you can think about if you could do it better than other people do, if you improve it (in a way you can prove works in practice) then you can present it and use it moving forward.

So what's more important to you, being a professor or challenging anything you find counter intuitive and fixating on it until you have solved the problem (assuming you ever solve the problem)?

What's more important to you, being in a relationship or challenging current social dynamics and fixating on them until you meet someone who agrees and is willing to play the role you desire of them (assuming you ever meet such a person)?

Either answer to each of those questions is acceptable, but both will have consequences and you have to own whichever you choose and the consequences that may follow.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> Thats one of the main things I don't understand. First of all, as a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage. So what I am desperate about is emotional connection, NOT sex. But, even if you put Christianity aside, I don't get how its even possible to be desperate for sex. I mean, I only became Christian when I was 22 years old. I became desperate to find a girlfriend a year earlier than that, at 21 (and that desperation continued all the way till today, and I am now 37). So this means that when I was a teenager I was an atheist. But, back in my teenage atheist days, I didn't want to find any girlfriend OR sex for that matter: I was thinking that its just a disraction from physics -- even though yes I had sexual fantasies and stuff. Then, at the age of 21, my sexual drive went DOWN (and it had nothing to do with being Christian -- I became Christian a year later, at 22, remember) and DESPITE my sexual drive going DOWN, I became desperate for finding girls. Why? Because I was emotionally hurt by being banned from a certain Asperger mailing list where I liked a certain girl (I liked her in romantic way, not sexual; and the reason for the ban had nothing to do with her) and also by being ostracized at a Jewish club my mom wanted me to go to. So due to the EMOTIONAL hurt I wanted to find a girlfriend to make me feel better about myself. A year later, at 22, I became Christian so I was against sex altogether; but this didn't change what I was desperate after. Even at the age of 21 when I wasn't Christian yet, sex still never even crossed my mind when I was obsessing about girls not liking me. The first time I had a girlfriend was at 23 so I never had sex. Now, if sex was offered to me at 21 then who knows maybe I would have had it (but thats hypothetical as it never happened) but still sex never even crossed my mind when I was obsessing about the girls not liking me. The only time when I was thinking of sex was when I was a teenager -- but back then like I said I thought of girls as waste of time and so those sexual fantasies didn't make me desperate about anything at all: I probably would have turned down a girl if she were to come after me when I was a teen since I wanted to do physics. I do have sexual fantasies now too (although less) but they are irrelevent to what I am desperate about. Its sort of like "I am desperate to find a girlfriend, and by the way I like icecream" and similarly "I am desperate to find girlfriend and by the way I like sex (although of course I can't have one as a Christian)"; totally unrelated things.
> 
> Long story short, I just don't see why you say that desperate guys want sex. To me its totally opposite. Being desperate means I want an emotional connection. I can't conceptualize being desperate after sex, whether I am Christian or not. Okay, lets put it this way: emotional connection is like BASIC food and water; sex is like some sort of LUXURY like cherry pie or something. Do you know anybody DESPERATE to eat CHERRY PIE? I don't! Do you know anybody desperate for food and water? Yes sure! That is precisely why I don't get why any guys can be desperate for sex. If I am desperate that is a good sign that it is NOT about sex.


Yes, well, I am also a very good mannered in the sex business, you know I always wanted to have sex in relationships and not casually with many guys at once. But just like you have your own beliefs about desperation not being the same as sex, that's how these other guys I have been dealing with and still am are in their own way and their own beliefs. I like the way you are way more, than the way they are with just eating cherry pies all the time like they are binge-ing on it for some sort of pleasure or void. I really dig guys who want emotional connection myself, I am like that, just like you are like this and how others prefer the cherry pie over just water and food. That's just how it is. I even asked this one guy, "would you have casual sex with me and not feel anything or get hurt?" and he says yeah he won't get hurt, but I told him that I would. It just seems like we are 2 different people and I don't like it, I would enjoy someone like you more. And with desperation and sex I think alot of people have different beliefs, some of them want the sex and others like you want the emotional connection, I thoroughly understand because I feel more aroused the way you are choosing to go on about this whole sex business than just a straight up desperate guy looking for sex and disregards any feelings I might have if he tried to **** me.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Erroll said:


> There's your problem, causal. Look at 2). "Someone takes me out of a desperate situation".
> 
> Whatever they did to take you out of your desperation cost them emotional effort. They spent effort on you. When people give their time and effort to you to help you, they do it because they have a need too. In fact, they expect you to spend at least as much emotional effort on filling their needs.
> 
> ...


Wow pretty cool, thanks for sharin'. When I first got in a relationship it was just thinking about myself you're right, you know I was so naive, I thought this one guy would really be there for all my damn need and wants. Boy was I wrong or what. It's strange, how him being more experienced in relationships and friends didn't care to think about my needs and wants correctly, maybe he also had autism? There definitely was something wrong with him, I felt the whole time like I was being used for sex only.
Only after I have been through a relationship or more, only after I have such a broken heart over and over again do I realize that I am able to see and consider another person's perspective and save them and myself by relating how I felt and how they might feel if I do this or that.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

I just want a little editorial balance here. As this letter will make clear, in all the torrents of rhetorical hot air thus far expended, it's hard to find a single sentence from any desperate guy that acknowledges that it gets perfervid about insurrectionism. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. Does any desperate guy honestly expect us to believe that it is a perpetual victim of injustice? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that it seems to assume that it should “enlighten” anyone who doesn't believe that its vices are the only true virtues because “it's the right thing to do”. This is an assumption of the worst kind because it's thoroughly inconsistent in its views. On one hand, it insists that unilateralism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. But on the other hand, it favors concentrating all the wealth of the world into its own hands. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see its hypocrisy?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, any desperate guy's forces are merely ciphers. Any desperate guy is the one who decides whether or not to deny the legitimacy of those who deal summarily with shambolic woodenheads. Any desperate guy is the one who gives out the orders to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. And any desperate guy is the one trying to conceal how it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, any desperate guy tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. Any desperate guy is good at one thing, and that's keeping its ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of its brownshirt brigade know that any desperate guy is planning to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. Even fewer of these initiates know that any desperate guy likes to compare its remonstrations to the venerable documents that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.

What I want to know is, will peeling back the onion of any desperate guy's bleeding-heart smears cause any desperate guy to shed tears or will it merely enhance its desire to make incorrect leaps of logic? That's what I want to know. I mean, any desperate guy commemorates Nativism Awareness Week, as if that were a legitimate holiday. Any desperate guy should be in better control of its hormones. Why does that matter? It matters because if any desperate guy is going to make an emotional appeal then it should also include a rational argument. Let me conclude by stating that tuchungism is in any desperate guy's DNA. 

You can quote me on that.


----------



## k_wifler (Sep 27, 2006)

@causalset, I think you should email "PBS Space Time" the youtube channel with your dilemma and links to your papers and see if they could spare some time to look at them, or see if they could refer you to someone who might be interested. While you're at it, you might be interested in watching their videos in your free time...

That was a very interesting (metaphor?) you made between physics and getting a girlfriend. It highlights my point that it's merely a communication problem that is getting in your way, and if you could find someone who speaks your 'language' as it were, you could confide in them to better understand your situation. As you may have realized, I like to use the word 'obvious' but I suppose I shouldn't, as other people use it to say I insulted them...

About making other people feel appreciated, in social 'physics' you would be classified as a non-interacting particle in the way that you... interact... Instead, and this is of course a social trick, all you have to do is find out what their excitement looks like, in an appropriate way, and send those signals to them. It's really not true that NT's can automagically sense or interpret each other's feelings. They have to first have experienced those feelings in order to detect them in others, and the related behaviors in others must be very similar as well. I hate acting, but I love communicating, as I hate being misunderstood, so I excuse my acting by calling it communication, and everything goes smoothly...

@SwtSurrender, LOL, I laugh because I get it, you're basically describing the great divide between male and female wants/needs. In a way, men are 'autistic' to female needs, and women are 'autistic' toward male needs, without actually having autism. In a way, your insight about causalset is right on, he fails to generalize, which is a typical aspergers trait. In this case, for him, it's a stunning revelation to see the similarities in his thought processes and experiences dealing with situations relating to both socializing and physics. I'm sure that he would find immense personal growth from comparing other aspects of his life in a similar manner. I, too, have felt the need to pursue my passions, and an unease toward cooperating with someone else on their totally uninteresting project. I think this dilemma is somewhat more severely felt in people with autism than in others, as I see so many people working for years in jobs they claim to hate, whereas I would not last very long at all doing a job that I hate, because it would wear me down way too much just to think about the prospect.

In my hobby studies on how thought processes affect communication, I have discovered several distinct thought 'imprints' basically similar to the way that CPU's processing speeds of various functions are affected by their physical architecture, so too, I think, some region of the brain affects how people think, and this region seems to be quite stable, stable enough to allow me to interpret a single 'way of thinking' within a varied group of people. I then proceed to analyze the logical formula that their thought processes are derived from, and I integrate it into my own thinking system, like THE BORG. I AM THE BORG, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. DO NOT RESIST. THANK YOU.


----------



## SparklingWater (Jan 16, 2013)

@splendidbob

you always make me laugh lol


----------



## Pongowaffle (Jul 23, 2015)

When you are deemed attractive, desperation = cute and funny. 

When you are deemed unattractive, desperation = sad and creepy.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@realisticandhopeful 

I knew http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ would be usable one day.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> You can quote me on that.


Did you just make all that up or was it a cut and paste job?:laugh:

Edit: Ah, cut & paste. I really need to start waiting until I've read to the end of the thread.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> Did you just make all that up or was it a cut and paste job?:laugh:
> 
> Edit: Ah, cut & paste. I really need to start waiting until I've read to the end of the thread.


Maybe I should have claimed it, it was quite impressive


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Maybe I should have claimed it, it was quite impressive


I'll admit that my browsers dictionary extension was in full effect.:smile2:


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

a desperate man might not be bad to me at this point. they'd probably be more eager and i'd probably like that....it'd make me feel wanted. maybe they'd be more grateful to have me and not take me for granted, too. i wouldn't want to feel unappreciated and like my value to them is low or that i am easy to replace. maybe a desperate man would be more likely to stick around and not cheat, as well.

maybe after being around me they'd start feeling better about themselves and then get rid of me for someone they think is better, though.

:stu


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> Even though I'm only quoting the end of your post I did read the whole thing.
> 
> Have you ever heard the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees"? It means that someone is missing the bigger point because they are focusing too much on the details, this reminds me of you (not an insult). You need to figure out what you want to ultimately achieve, and think about how to best achieve that goal, once you're able to achieve the goal you can worry about the details. So using the Grassmann numbers (just to be clear I have absolutely no idea what these are) as an example, if their explanation can be used to solve the problems they pose that's what you should accept, even if it's counter intuitive. Not that it's perfect or that you couldn't improve it but that it's good enough to solve those problems. You use their explanation so that you can progress in your life/career and if you wish you can look into the explanation in your free time, if you improve it (in a way you can prove works in practice) then you can present it and use it moving forward.


Its funny you don't even know physics yet you say exactly what the physicists are telling me, including "not seeing forest for the trees" as well as the fact that what I am doing doesn't affect actual results. In fact those are the main things I am hearing from most physicists.

I guess the reason I don't agree with them when they say this to me is that there are three types of physicists: theoretical, experimental, and applied. I want to be theoretical physicist. So with theoretical physics a lot of stuff they do don't have immediate real life applications. So if their work on string theory or higgs boson is motivated only by curiosity, why can't I be curious about Grassmann numbers instead? In fact I am thinking they are closer to dwelling on trees and I am closer to looking at the forest. After all Higgs boson is just one of SEVERAL particles, so it looks like a tree, whereas Grassmann numbers are applicable to HALF OF the particles around (namely to fermions) so thats a forest. But they aren't buying it since they think that Grassmann numbers is what they can just take on faith value and not care how they come about, but then I can ask them why can't I just not care how many particles there are and instead focus on the essence of particle in general (which WOULD involve the definition of Grassman numbers)? So thats why it seems like when people say I don't see the forest for the trees the real issue is not that at all but rather what I find important versus what they find important. And its not at all uncommon for different groups of physicists to find different things in common; my only problem is that I am in minority.

Case in point: back in the early 20-th century Einstein and Bohr was arguing whether or not God can play dice, and it wasn't just two of them, A LOT of physicists were doing the same thing. However, right now most physicists would look at this type of debate as something they can do on spare time which has nothing to do with their work -- and they put what I do in that same category. Now, there are FEW physicists who are still working on those types of theories, although most other physicists were discouraging me from joining them, but still there are few. So the question is: why do those physicists still get published (although its harder for them to do so) while I don't? I mean their question about God playing dice and my question about definition of Grassmann numbers can be cast into the same category: a concern about aesthetics of various concepts that has no applications beyond that. So why do they get published and I don't? Apparently because they have a small group of people and I am just one person. So a lot of this stuff is really herd mentality even if people don't admit thats the case. So to sum it up I can ask few different questions:

1. Why is it working on particle physics "better" than asking whether God plays dice, if back in early 20-th century it was the opposite?
2. Why is asking whether God plays dice "better" than asking about Grassmann numbers if in both cases the concern is philosophical?
3. If particle physics have no practical aplicatications how can particle physicist accuse the physicists that worry about God playing dice of not having applications?
4. If physicists that work on God not playing dice don't have any applications themselves and they know it, how can they still accuse me of the same thing?

In any case, some physicists were telling me that if I don't care about results and I only care about mathematical structure making sense, I should go to mathematicians. I guess they had a point: if you look at the work of mathematicians rather than physicists, the mathematicians DO ask those sorts of questions -- but instead of asking about definition of Grassmann numbers they were asking about definition of regular numbers (and its definition is well known, its covered in real analysis course). Now, I personally would be perfectly fine if regular numbers didn't have rigourous definition, since I know what they are intuitively (well I enjoyed studying their definition, but it was more like a fun thing to do as opposed to something I felt forced to do) whereas in case of Grassmann numbers yes I feel compelled to define them because they are so counter-intuitive. But when I talk to a mathematicians, they have an opposite take: a mathematician finds the definition of regular numbers interesting and definition of Grassmann numbers as not. Why? Because Grassmann numbers are only used in physics, so mathematicians never heard of Grassmann numbers before I tell them what they are, and when I do tell them their question is "why do you need them" and when I say they are used for physics then they tell me "so go talk to physicists". But you see, even though they are used exclusively for physics, their definition doesn't involve physics: one doesn't have to know any physics at all in order to make a "mathematical" statement of what Grassmann numbers are and ask "mathematical" quesiton how is it possible. But I guess mathematicians don't think this "mathematical" question is well motivated since they don't know physics. But when I go back to physicists to try to convince them to look at my work then they tell me that since my focus has to do with how to define things rather than actual results I should go to mathematicians. So basically I am being sent back and forth between mathematicians and physicists. I even tried to send my paper to philosophy of science journal but then this journal responded that what I do is not a philosophy, rather "philosophy" is often used as a "swear word" so to speak among physicists to designate anything they aren't interested in but they, as philosophers, know what philosophy is and their interest doesn't match what I do.

Anyway sometimes I wonder maybe the reason I can't get people to be interested in Grassmann numbers is historic in nature: back at the time when they DID ask questions such as "does God play dice" Grassmann numbers weren't around yet, and at the time when they came up with Grassmann numbers they have already accepted for a given that quantum physics doesn't make intuitive sense and thats why no one ever questioned how Grassmann numbers possible. So who knows maybe if the historic sequence of when physicists came up with what concept were different, maybe someone WOULD HAVE asked the questions I am asking, but this didn't happen. But you see, its just me who thinks its historic; no one else agrees with me: everyone is tell me I am not seeing a forest for the trees while I think it is them who aren't seeing something due to their social conditioning. So maybe with girls its the same thing: maybe there are some well articulated answers to all of my questions as to why girls do what they do, but they don't even acknowledge those things just like physicists don't acknowledge the historic things I just talked about?

In terms of my choice between being a professor or doing Grassmann numbers, its rather too late to make this choice because I already DID answer all my questions, and made 26 arXiv papers about it. So now that those questions are out of the way I have ONE goal when it comes to theoretical physics: getting myself published. But there are TWO ways of getting published: Either I have to publish all those papers that I already have, or else I have to start doing something brand new that is more conventional and get publications there. And thats where I am torn. On the one hand, if I do something brand new then who knows how long it would take for me to get any work done much less publications, whereas in terms of what I already have with Grassmann numbers and other things I already have 26 papers right in front of me, all I have to do is to convince one of the journal editors to publish them. But, on the other hand, my past record shows that its very hard to get any of them published, which means I "should" do something more conventional. I guess if I was 20 then this wouldn't be such a difficult choice: I could just start something from scratch since most people don't have anything published when they are 20. But now when I am 37 thats different: most people my age already have a lot of things done, and I do too, except that those things are not conventional. So simply ignoring them and starting from scratch, at 37, doesn't sound very appealing. I guess I could work on both fronts and try to publish what I have and do something new at the same time, which is what I am trying to do now.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

tea111red said:


> a desperate man might not be bad to me at this point. they'd probably be more eager and i'd probably like that....it'd make me feel wanted. maybe they'd be more grateful to have me and not take me for granted, too. i wouldn't want to feel unappreciated and like my value to them is low or that i am easy to replace. maybe a desperate man would be more likely to stick around and not cheat, as well.


Very good point  Its the first time I heard from a woman that she actually agrees with me 



tea111red said:


> maybe after being around me they'd start feeling better about themselves and then get rid of me for someone they think is better, though.


In my case, once I spent some time in a relationship, I wouldn't want to leave since I would feel like I have already invested emotionally and I don't want to throw away a special bond that it took so long time to build, if you know what I mean.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> I even asked this one guy, "would you have casual sex with me and not feel anything or get hurt?" and he says yeah he won't get hurt, but I told him that I would.


Wow he is crazy. I mean what is even a point of anything temporary (including sex) unless you are thinking that it would lead to something permanent. I actually read online that it is common among guys to just have sex once and forget about the woman. And I don't understand why would they do it? Why would it even be worth it? And then of course from my perspective each time I do do something (well in my case its not sex but quality time) I am hoping for something bigger to be built out of that, and thats why it hurts so much when all of my hopes are being thrown away. Incidentally girls do that to me too -- like I said not with sex but with leaving me after quality time. Could it be that they don't think they are hurting me this way is because OTHER GUYS aren't getting hurt by this sort of thing and they FALSELY assume I am the same way?


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

causalset said:


> But then what about the situations when people decided that I didn't care, so they withdraw, and then I was going out of my way to tell them "yes I did care I just didn't tell you because I was shy", why do they not believe me in this case?


I don't think that it is a question of believing that you were sincere. Here's how a girl might reason;

"I bent over backwards to make him happy, but I don't know if he even noticed. This guy isn't really interested in me for me. He's just interested in me for what I can do for him. Every time he has a problem, he comes crying to me. But regardless of my effort, it seems like he always has more problems for me to work on. Problems that I expend effort on, and never know if he even notices. Why do I waste my time with him. I'll find someone who appreciates me for the person I am.
And now he says he does appreciate me. So does this mean that every time I help him out that I am going to have to ask for a 'thank you' or 'I appreciate you' or something. That's so artificial. There is no true appreciation there. He is just using me as a tool to fulfill his needs. "

Can you imagine your former girlfriend thinking something like that of you? Or does it seem that it is very unlikely that she felt this way?

Once someone spends effort and time on someone else and doesn't feel compensated for their effort, it is very hard to get them to trust you enough for them to spend more time and effort on you.
Have you ever tried role playing things like that? You could start with something like how your life has changed since you met them. The thing is that you have to talk about them and why things are better with them. Then that exchange has to continue through the entire relationship for as long as it lasts. Or you could ask about them, find one of their problems, and get them to talk about it. Of course you might not know the solution or even have a suggestion. But at least, if you take an interest in their problem; that's showing appreciation too.

I have found that a little thing called "Active Listening" works well when listening to other peoples' problems. Google it. You just show that you are hearing and understanding their problem, and it makes people think that you are the greatest listener in the world, lol.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Wow pretty cool, thanks for sharin'. When I first got in a relationship it was just thinking about myself you're right, you know I was so naive, I thought this one guy would really be there for all my damn need and wants. Boy was I wrong or what. It's strange, how him being more experienced in relationships and friends didn't care to think about my needs and wants correctly, maybe he also had autism? There definitely was something wrong with him, I felt the whole time like I was being used for sex only.
> Only after I have been through a relationship or more, only after I have such a broken heart over and over again do I realize that I am able to see and consider another person's perspective and save them and myself by relating how I felt and how they might feel if I do this or that.


Thanks Swt. It is nice to hear that something I wrote was appreciated by someone. You are doing the exact thing that I was talking about too; showing appreciation, and I feel good reading your post here, so it works.

Also, you are a valuable commodity. Don't let people take your kindness without repaying it. Help them realize that kindness must be repaid (with appreciation or whatever) if you ever expect to receive it again. Give them a chance; give them lots of chances, but realize when enough is enough and look elsewhere.


----------



## Explorer5 (May 25, 2016)

January said:


> Okay, here's where I think your problem is. It really sounds like, and I don't mean this cruelly because I think it's something plenty of us with SA struggle with, you don't _have_ much of a life. You have your education, and&#8230; that's about it, apparently. Average people will have friends, hobbies, clubs, volunteer work, something else going on in their life that gives them joy/pleasure.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for a girl to "change your entire life" implies that you're going to become needy and dependent on her for all your social interactions, since you don't have anyone else. That isn't appealing (and can border on creepy depending on how it presents), because unless she's in the exact same situation as you, she's already going to _have_ a life and things she wants to do, including things you won't be included in or things you just aren't interested in. On the other hand, look at the more confident (or more social, or whatever) person, who is going to have at least some level of friendships and/or activities outside of the relationship and therefore seems, at least at face value, less likely to become clingy and jealous. A healthy relationship isn't one where you two are each other's entire worlds.


I think this is right on, but I take this same factual idea and assign the opposite value judgment to it. Namely, I'd strongly prefer a girl who "doesn't have much of a life" either. Girls with large friend circles, who are outgoing and socially confident, repel me.

I don't mean I like a girl without any interests, I mean a girl who is nearly as much an outside observer of the 
world as I am. Yes, for balance it might be helpful if a girl has A FEW more friends than I do, but a large imbalance tells me that things won't work out.

I see nothing more romantic than to find some misunderstood girl who has ideas and creative aspirations that nobody else seems to value, and to build our own world of sharing together, to make her feel like finally someone "gets it".


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> Its funny you don't even know physics yet you say exactly what the physicists are telling me, including "not seeing forest for the trees" as well as the fact that what I am doing doesn't affect actual results. In fact those are the main things I am hearing from most physicists.
> 
> I guess the reason I don't agree with them when they say this to me is that there are three types of physicists: theoretical, experimental, and applied. I want to be theoretical physicist. So with theoretical physics a lot of stuff they do don't have immediate real life applications. So if their work on string theory or higgs boson is motivated only by curiosity, why can't I be curious about Grassmann numbers instead?


Well, the short answer is because not enough people agree with you to pay you to do it. So your only options are to think of a way to make your work on Grassmann numbers interesting to the people whose approval you require, do the things that the people whose approval you require want you to do, or do your own thing independently from them. Not being accepted doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, it's not like you would be the first outsider in science to change the way things are approached. But if you need them to accomplish your goal you're going to have to work within their realm and/or compromise.



causalset said:


> In fact I am thinking they are closer to dwelling on trees and I am closer to looking at the forest. After all Higgs boson is just one of SEVERAL particles, so it looks like a tree, whereas Grassmann numbers are applicable to HALF OF the particles around (namely to fermions) so thats a forest. But they aren't buying it since they think that Grassmann numbers is what they can just take on faith value and not care how they come about, but then I can ask them why can't I just not care how many particles there are and instead focus on the essence of particle in general (which WOULD involve the definition of Grassman numbers)? So thats why it seems like when people say I don't see the forest for the trees the real issue is not that at all but rather what I find important versus what they find important. And its not at all uncommon for different groups of physicists to find different things in common; my only problem is that I am in minority.


I'll tell you something about myself so that this conversation isn't so theoretical/academic. I see some of myself in some of the things you say, the way you look at some things. The way I describe it is that I seem to be speaking another language, other people speak in whats and whens but I speak in whys. Ironically I stopped my education after the first year of A-Levels (that's what comes before university in England) and the reason I lost interest was partially because they told me that I just needed to accept what works but they couldn't (or weren't prepared to) tell me why (I was taking both Maths and Physics but don't really remember any of it).

At this point in my life I was still terrible at socialising because it doesn't come naturally to me. In order to solve this problem I had to first accept that life didn't work the way I wished it did. I learnt what did work through observation and once I was able to prove that it worked first hand (within my abilities) I then tried to figure out why it worked (as I believe that greater understanding leads to improved mastery). Once I had reached my conclusions I made predictions, tested them and made adjustments as required. Eventually I figured out a way I could successfully socialise on a reliable basis while using aspects of my genuine personality. I still don't like socialising but I'm pretty good at it now, I think you could do something similar with regards to your relationship issues (let's leave the physics aside for the time being). Figure out what works and how you could replicate it (within your abilities), then you can try to figure out why it works and with any luck eventually you'll be able to reliably succeed while being your true self (if you're anything like me you hate not being genuine). But you have to decide which is more important, succeeding, understanding or authenticity. They aren't mutually exclusive, but you're more likely to achieve one if you focus on it and that may come at the expense of the others.

So I understand the compulsion to understand, not finding it acceptable to simply accept without questioning. You *might* be right, while everyone is busy looking at *a* forest you might be the only one who discovers a fungus that could cause all of the trees to die and ultimately saves *all* of the forests. The problem is, if you don't, you might end up wasting your life instead (while everyone else is enjoying the forest view). This is what I mean when I say that you have to own the potential consequences associated with the life choices you make.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Erroll said:


> I bent over backwards to make him happy, but I don't know if he even noticed.


Once again, if I didn't notice it, why would I be so upset when she is gone?



Erroll said:


> There is no true appreciation there. He is just using me as a tool to fulfill his needs.


If she was a physicist and I kept asking her to help me with my work, then I could see how she could say this. But, as it stands, that wasn't the case. The only NEED she was fulfilling was my EMOTIONAL need. So if she claims that I didn't EMOTIONALLY react to her, how would I possibly could be "using" her for something that she claims never happened? Thats where it seems like she contradicts herself. And if I don't care about her on emotional level, how come the one and only thing I am complaining about when she leaves is emotional?



Erroll said:


> Have you ever tried role playing things like that? You could start with something like how your life has changed since you met them. The thing is that you have to talk about them and why things are better with them.


See, this just brings back the EXACT question I was having. So all those girls that gave up on me, they don't think that my life was better when I was with them. But then how would they answer the following question: if my life was NOT better with them, why was I arguing with them trying to stop them from leaving? What was I trying to accomplish if my life wouldn't have been better anyway? Was I just some sort of robot programmed to argue without any feelings that would go along with it?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Explorer5 said:


> I think this is right on, but I take this same factual idea and assign the opposite value judgment to it. Namely, I'd strongly prefer a girl who "doesn't have much of a life" either. Girls with large friend circles, who are outgoing and socially confident, repel me.
> 
> I don't mean I like a girl without any interests, I mean a girl who is nearly as much an outside observer of the
> world as I am. Yes, for balance it might be helpful if a girl has A FEW more friends than I do, but a large imbalance tells me that things won't work out.
> ...


I totally agree with you. And for me it goes both ways. Both me "rescuing" an outsider girl and the outsider girl "rescuing" me feels so romantic. In fact if both me and her are outsiders and we "rescued" each other, that would make me feel super close to her.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> Well, the short answer is because not enough people agree with you to pay you to do it. So your only options are to think of a way to make your work on Grassmann numbers interesting to the people whose approval you require, do the things that the people whose approval you require want you to do, or do your own thing independently from them.


The problem with doing it independently is that I will die some day, and then all my ideas will die with me, unless I communicate them to someone. So one of my big goals is to make sure that the topics I am thinking about are "on the table" before I die. Once they are on the table, I don't particularly care whether everyone takes my side or some people disagree. I just want everyone to be aware that those questions exist (whether they agree they are valid questions or not) and that some answers were articulated (whether they agree with their importance or not) and, most importantly, for this to be passed along from generation to generation -- much like the debate on whether God plays dice is being passed along. So I guess that is part of the reason why I am doing the "opposite" to what others do when it comes to following the crowd. Others want to follow things that other people are doing, so that they can get paid etc. But I am thinking that if others are already doing such and such, who cares if I throw 101-st thought on the table? But if others are *not* doing something (to the point that no single person does it other than myself) then I would like to make sure that they do hear about it. So like with "does God play dice" I have a lot of thoughts to offer, but its not my top priority since others have already been thinking about it, even if their thoughts aren't exactly the same as mine (so I am not looking for trees after all). But when it comes to Grassmann numbers, "no one" been thinking about it other than myself, which is what makes it one of my top priorities.

But then again like I told you, I already "did" complete my Grassmann number project to my satisfaction. So whatever project I would be doing now will be more mainstream. But I still want to get Grassmann numbers published, and its only makes sense that if I already spent so many years to do something, and it was completted, I would want it to be published. But I guess I can try to publish it in parallel with other things I am doing.



LonelyLurker said:


> Not being accepted doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong,


Well nobody tells me I am wrong either. What they tell is more along the lines of simply not knowing what I am trying to accomplish. Being wrong and doing something useless are two different things. Since people think what I do is useless, they don't even bother forming an opinion whether its right or wrong. And I guess I want to convince them that its not useless and make them pay attention.



LonelyLurker said:


> I'll tell you something about myself so that this conversation isn't so theoretical/academic. I see some of myself in some of the things you say, the way you look at some things. The way I describe it is that I seem to be speaking another language, other people speak in whats and whens but I speak in whys.


Yeah that is exact disagreement between me and others: they speak in "what" and I speak in "why". And this applies to both physics and relationships. But in relationships I believe that thinking in terms of whys is better. Because if you think in terms of what, you will lump together someone with social anxiety with someone who doesn't care about others. But if you think in terms of why then you will see that those people are completely different beneath the surface. Thats why I wish people were to think in terms of why and give me a chance.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> Wow he is crazy. I mean what is even a point of anything temporary (including sex) unless you are thinking that it would lead to something permanent. I actually read online that it is common among guys to just have sex once and forget about the woman. And I don't understand why would they do it? Why would it even be worth it? And then of course from my perspective each time I do do something (well in my case its not sex but quality time) I am hoping for something bigger to be built out of that, and thats why it hurts so much when all of my hopes are being thrown away. Incidentally girls do that to me too -- like I said not with sex but with leaving me after quality time. Could it be that they don't think they are hurting me this way is because OTHER GUYS aren't getting hurt by this sort of thing and they FALSELY assume I am the same way?


Yeah, some guys get satisfied to have sex with some girls just for the satisfaction of having someone else rub off their own itch. I don't want to do that to someone, I'd rather rub my own by myself. I'd love to rub off each others itching if I get into a serious relationship, but not just like this where the guy has no feelings for me. Some guys are more satisfied with short term itching rubbed off and no feelings involved. They don't have any interest in pursuing a serious relationship with real itching and real rubbing satisfaction and real feelings being involved. These guys are crazy but to each their own, I know there are women out there doing the same thing, it's not just guys.

Sorry to hear about those girls leaving you after you invest genuine quality time with them. Yeah, I think they assume you won't get hurt cuz other guys don't even give them quality time, in fact, all they might be giving them is quality sex. I also give quality time and desire some quality time in return, but all they want is for me to accept their offer of some quality sex.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Erroll said:


> Thanks Swt. It is nice to hear that something I wrote was appreciated by someone. You are doing the exact thing that I was talking about too; showing appreciation, and I feel good reading your post here, so it works.
> 
> Also, you are a valuable commodity. Don't let people take your kindness without repaying it. Help them realize that kindness must be repaid (with appreciation or whatever) if you ever expect to receive it again. Give them a chance; give them lots of chances, but realize when enough is enough and look elsewhere.


Yes, thank you kind sir. I very much appreciate what you write, it rings true.


----------



## Explorer5 (May 25, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> So I understand the compulsion to understand, not finding it acceptable to simply accept without questioning. You *might* be right, while everyone is busy looking at *a* forest you might be the only one who discovers a fungus that could cause all of the trees to die and ultimately saves *all* of the forests. The problem is, if you don't, you might end up wasting your life instead (while everyone else is enjoying the forest view). This is what I mean when I say that you have to own the potential consequences associated with the life choices you make.


That's why I'm attracted primarily to girls who make it clear, by how they live their own lives, their own willingness to ignore the group, and which guys impress them, that in the event that I have wasted (part of) my life with something, that a girl will be glad she "wasted" it with me, and not joined the herd in being busy doing what everyone else was doing.

As for the OP though--a big realization I made after my first failed attempts at PhD programs was that there is a need for compromise in pursuing your own pet ideas and ideas that others find valuable. As long as you spend enough time on projects others consider worthwhile, you can spend the remainder of your time working on things only YOU find interesting. And, you can self-publish your results/findings, provided you can complete your work without help from others (which is easier in your field, physics, than in mine, biology). Important to that is that you actually spend enough time learning the accepted things that they become (relatively) easy. A trap idealistic people like us fall into is feeling we shouldn't need to learn the accepted methods at all, so we avoid learning them as much as possible in favor of our own ideas, yet sometimes it's actually easier to work on your own ideas if you make a point of mastering the accepted ideas without so much hesitation.

Back the the desperation thing though--I would disagree with whoever said desperation is inherently attractive to men and unattractive to women. I actually think the "preferred level of need" is similar, but other sex differences lead to men being needier than this preferred level and women being less needy (at least openly).

Especially when you look at socially isolated males, we often go through long periods of time wondering if any woman would even do something as simple as kiss us, or if we are meant to ever see an uncovered breast in person. In many cases, if a woman wants to know what a male body looks like, or what it feels like to be kissed, she can just ask a trusted guy friend and he will oblige. Granted not ALL women have this opportunity (and sorry to all of you women who wouldn't do this so as to "not ruin the friendship--you're bringing it on yourself), but a large majority do.

So you have men around who are socially isolated and who have some baseline interest in any woman just because she has a female body, and that is something completely novel to them. It doesn't mean they like all women the same, it's just that there's a whole piece of human experience they have been completely cut off from. So, when they refer to a "desperate" woman, really all they mean is a woman who has that same baseline level of interest in him purely because of his male body as he has in her. Compared to the typical women who are coolly indifferent to a guy unless they have a specific reason to like him, this is "desperate", but it doesn't mean even these guys prefer a woman who sees nothing in him that she doesn't see in other guys. At least not as far as I know.

It's also important to differentiate what, for lack of a better term, I will call "guy desperation" and "girl desperation". I'm calling them this not because a guy could never feel "girl desperation" or vice versa, but because they are more often shown by their respective sexes. "Guy desperation" is feeling cut off from all physical intimacy of any form (including but not necessarily specifically sex) and romantic love in general. "Girl desperation" is things like having a ticking biological clock and wanting to be married with kids, not having the status that comes with getting a "good man", etc. If I'm any indication, "girl desperation" is never attractive to guys, but "guy desperation" can be, because all it shows is that she has the same needs we do. It doesn't mean that once we actually get a baseline level of attention and experience that we won't be selective, nor that we don't want a woman who actually chooses us.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> Yeah that is exact disagreement between me and others: they speak in "what" and I speak in "why". And this applies to both physics and relationships. But in relationships I believe that thinking in terms of whys is better. Because if you think in terms of what, you will lump together someone with social anxiety with someone who doesn't care about others. But if you think in terms of why then you will see that those people are completely different beneath the surface. Thats why I wish people were to think in terms of why and give me a chance.


I agree that thinking in terms of "why" is better, but I would say that wouldn't I? I imagine most people who don't really care about "why" would disagree, they could say that it's impractical for example.

What I did was use the skills I do possess to compensate for the skills I don't/didn't, maybe you could do the same. Find out "what" works (even if it seems counter-intuitive), figure out "why" it works (even if you don't like/agree with the apparent reason) and then you can try to use that information to your benefit.

1) Can you find a way to appreciate "what" your peers find interesting, but on the "why" level?
2) Can you find a way to convince your peers to be interested in "what" you find interesting?
3) Can you find a way to convince your peers to share your interests on the "why" level?

Option 3 is the ideal scenario from your perspective (you're both speaking the same language), sometimes you might have to settle for options 1 or 2 (you're speaking different languages but have a translator) and sometimes you won't be able to get any of those options (you're speaking different languages with no translator).

I would consider all of this a practical use of critical thinking skills, and those can be applied to absolutely everything (at least in my opinion).

What do you think? Does any of that sound plausible?


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Explorer5 said:


> That's why I'm attracted primarily to girls who make it clear, by how they live their own lives, their own willingness to ignore the group, and which guys impress them, that in the event that I have wasted (part of) my life with something, that a girl will be glad she "wasted" it with me, and not joined the herd in being busy doing what everyone else was doing.


I hear you. What would be considered a waste of time is of course relative, if you enjoyed the journey even though you never reached the intended destination, or at least thought it was a worthwhile pursuit (in and of itself), I wouldn't personally consider it wasted time.

We should also be careful not to assume that everyone in the "herd" thinks the way they do merely because they wish to be part of the "herd". It's also possible that they just happen to genuinely agree with the general consensus and therefore gravitate to the larger group, that the "herd" is merely a reflection of underlying truths. Of course there are definitely people who just change themselves to fit in with the crowd (I couldn't say to what degree) but we shouldn't rush to judgement unless we have further evidence.

I'm not the type of person who can believe something just because it's repeated so I don't use affirmations, but if I did have a mantra it would be this.

"Give them a chance to prove you wrong"

The fact that I have to keep telling myself that should let you know that I'm not immune to generalising either.:smile2:


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Explorer5 said:


> As for the OP though--a big realization I made after my first failed attempts at PhD programs was that there is a need for compromise in pursuing your own pet ideas and ideas that others find valuable. As long as you spend enough time on projects others consider worthwhile, you can spend the remainder of your time working on things only YOU find interesting. And, you can self-publish your results/findings, provided you can complete your work without help from others (which is easier in your field, physics, than in mine, biology). Important to that is that you actually spend enough time learning the accepted things that they become (relatively) easy. A trap idealistic people like us fall into is feeling we shouldn't need to learn the accepted methods at all, so we avoid learning them as much as possible in favor of our own ideas, yet sometimes it's actually easier to work on your own ideas if you make a point of mastering the accepted ideas without so much hesitation.


See @causalset, SEE!:smile2:

I think you should see if @Explorer5 could give you some practical tips given his first hand academic experience.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

Explorer5 said:


> Especially when you look at socially isolated males, we often go through long periods of time wondering if any woman would even do something as simple as kiss us, or if we are meant to ever see an uncovered breast in person. In many cases,* if a woman wants to know what a male body looks like, or what it feels like to be kissed, she can just ask a trusted guy friend* and he will oblige. Granted not ALL women have this opportunity (and sorry to all of you women who wouldn't do this so as to "not ruin the friendship--you're bringing it on yourself), but a large majority do.


Can any women on this site confirm this? Just asking because it seems a strange comment to make, since you can't possibly know that it's true. Ladies of SAS, any guy friends that would help you out?


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

causalset said:


> In my case, once I spent some time in a relationship, I wouldn't want to leave since I would feel like I have already invested emotionally and I don't want to throw away a special bond that it took so long time to build, if you know what I mean.


that's good...i like that you are thinking this way now. hopefully you would not feel tempted to cheat if you got put in some situation where some woman threw themselves at you and/or you were vulnerable. hopefully you'd remember that bond in situations where you felt attracted to someone else that wasn't your s/o. hopefully you will keep in mind the devastation cheating can cause.

my grandma was crushed by what my grandpa did to her and was still bothered by it on her death bed. i've seen the profound effect his actions had on her life. a lot of her life is incredibly sad to me now that i am older and understand things. i'd really hate to have to go through the things she did.

i hope there are other men out there that would care enough to not throw away everything they had w/ their s/o for some other woman. i mean, i really don't have a lot of hope of coming across a man that will stay devoted and not give into temptation/cheating so easily. i seriously hope i am personally shown that there are men that will stay devoted to the woman they're with.

anyway, i hope you find someone eventually.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Can any women on this site confirm this? Just asking because it seems a strange comment to make, since you can't possibly know that it's true. Ladies of SAS, any guy friends that would help you out?


I don't know if women would know unless they've done it but it'd be interesting to see if you get any responses. As a man I guess I would be the exception if this is actually a rule, if I wasn't attracted to her it wouldn't even be a possibility. Even if I was attracted to her, if I was *actually* her friend I would be suspicious, is she just f'ing with me? Is she going through something that might make her do something stupid (I wouldn't abuse a friend's weakness)? So there would need to be a discussion, it definitely wouldn't be as easy as asking me for the time.:smile2:


----------



## k_wifler (Sep 27, 2006)

TheWelshOne said:


> Can any women on this site confirm this? Just asking because it seems a strange comment to make, since you can't possibly know that it's true. Ladies of SAS, any guy friends that would help you out?


I'm not a women or ladies, but I know from my studies of cultures that there are regions of the world where this is accepted and fairly common behavior. Although cultures that embrace this behavior often also have other odd customs, such as kissing strangers on the lips to say hello, anyways...


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

I have seen alot of desperation/desperated guys and to me it all gets down to the point that their main priority is sex. Again, OP, I am not assuming that your main priority is sex as you did mention your main priority which is nothing other than an emotional connection. And that is ****ing rare, which would lead any girl thinking you want what the majority of guys want, which is sex. I remember when I was myself desperate I was desperate for an emotional connection with someone and also for sex, in a way, I see it as them going hand in hand, so maybe then it just depends on which one you choose to focus on more. I've experienced several desperate guys, there was this first one which was LDR and he was really desperate and really annoying but I couldn't see that then. Back then I was just like him and that really blinded everything, which comes to that phrase, "love is blind" but I don't think it has anything to do with what I just said lol or if it does, cool. And in a way the way it starts off and the way the relationship goes with 2 desperate people is it always shoots off well cuz you're both on the same page. 

But now a days, I have seen some desperated guys and some really chill/confident guys and sometimes even the chill ones are like way too chill and they get to this point where it feels like they don't even care about me. Whereas being desperate it feels like they care too much and then I question if they really care or if they just want me to satisfy their priority be it an emotional connection or sex or both. I have seen the way they text me and this one really desperate guy is getting very annoying, I guess it starts to show when he texts me incessantly: a trait of psychopathy. He texts me incessantly asking when to meet up, and if we could meet today or tomorrow but the truth is he is another ex. Maybe even the true fact that I have some ugly memories of him and us is another reason why I don't want to do agree with his desperation. 

This comes to show the extreme difference in someone like him who is desperate and someone like me because now I find his desperation annoying and just shows how much less desperate I am. If I was desperate I would be like omg he is showing attention in my omg yay I should take this opportunity right now! No, imo, that is a damn trap. We girls and guys have to get past this little trap and build ourselves up to be confident. So then if you come across a desperate guy and you are confident, then you 2 won't hit anything off. But say if you come across another confident guy and you are confident too, then there is a higher chance you will be attracting each other and higher to hit something off. The same way as I mentioned before if 2 desperate people were to hit it off, then yes they would also be able to form a relationship, or agree to something, or find each other very attractive.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> *I read how people on this board talk as to how they can try and hide their social anxiety. But here is a better question: why should it be something to hide on the first place? Why can't girls actually CHOOSE socially anxious guy over the confident one? Apart from the fact that socially anxious guy is in much more desperate need for female attention (when I was confident back in high school I didn't even care about girls I did just fine without them) the womans love would be reciprocated a lot more as well.*


Hmm the way you explain it here sounds so much different than just your thread title. I think there would be less confusion if you just titled your thread something like, "Social Anxiety shouldn't be a turn off in the first place." Then you go on about comparing social anxiety to desperation? Lol, no not all people who have social anxiety are desperate or the exact definition of desperation.

So, now I feel like all you're stating is that social anxiety shouldn't be seen as a turn off to women/men when it comes to dating. Well, if you're someone with social anxiety who isn't too desperate and have some grasp of confidence then it would be a turn on. But it depends on what the other person you're attracting is going to be attracted to. Some of us love desperate social anxiety guys/girls if we are the same, others will be more attracted to a guy/girl with a little less desperation and a little more confidence or some kind of a positive balance.


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

ya thats why it makes it feel like a paradox


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Yeah, I am completely turned off from a desperate guy who wants to become my boyfriend on the first day we meet and also wants to have sex with me on that day. I used to be exactly like that, I understand what the guy was thinking, he was turned off at the sight of my desperation. Looking back, my behavior chased the guy away, he wanted to be my friend first but back then I was instantly insulted at the thought of him doing that. Now, that I came to this point myself, I remember being turned off when some guy was behaving like that with me. I remember why he stopped contact with me because I was treating him the same was the other guy treated me. If you're not on the same page with someone, then you feel insulted and then you don't talk or contact one another anymore. It definitely feels like an upgraded stage/phase in your life, a better one, which more people are on. :grin2:


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Yeah, I am completely turned off from a desperate guy who wants to become my boyfriend on the first day we meet and also wants to have sex with me on that day. I used to be exactly like that, I understand what the guy was thinking, he was turned off at the sight of my desperation. Looking back, my behavior chased the guy away, he wanted to be my friend first but back then I was instantly insulted at the thought of him doing that. Now, that I came to this point myself, I remember being turned off when some guy was behaving like that with me. I remember why he stopped contact with me because I was treating him the same was the other guy treated me. If you're not on the same page with someone, then you feel insulted and then you don't talk or contact one another anymore. It definitely feels like an upgraded stage/phase in your life, a better one, which more people are on. :grin2:


ya thats why it feels like a paradox of damned if you do, damned if you don't, because women will almost never initiate anything


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

JaegerLover217 said:


> ya thats why it feels like a paradox of damned if you do, damned if you don't, because women will almost never initiate anything


Yeah, that's right, they don't! Unless the guy is super hot/super sexy/super cute and available for sex.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

SwtSurrender said:


> Yeah, that's right, they don't! Unless the guy is super hot/super sexy/super cute and available for sex.


Women still won't approach because they would be intimidated. Unless he was rich/famous then they would.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Women still won't approach because they would be intimidated. Unless he was rich/famous then they would.


Yeah that's right, like Justin Bieber or any other celebrity who has it easy cuz they celebrities.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Women still won't approach because they would be intimidated. Unless he was rich/famous then they would.


Whats ironic is that women justify not approaching by saying that men presumably wouldn't want them. But celebrities are a lot less likely to want them than ordinary men. So this excuse doesn't hold water.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

SwtSurrender said:


> Yeah that's right, like Justin Bieber or any other celebrity who has it easy cuz they celebrities.


Exactly, otherwise he'd just be a regular short, but cute kid. And honestly the better looking the guy the more intimidated the girl will be, so it actually makes the girl really insecure in a relationship situation. Situations that are purely based on sex are a different matter however.


causalset said:


> Whats ironic is that women justify not approaching by saying that men presumably wouldn't want them. But celebrities are a lot less likely to want them than ordinary men. So this excuse doesn't hold water.


You're overthinking again (just like the novels you wrote earlier in the thread). If a guy is super rich and famous that changes everything entirely. Do you really think women would have lined up to suck Trump's dick if he wasn't a billionaire?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Hmm the way you explain it here sounds so much different than just your thread title. I think there would be less confusion if you just titled your thread something like, "Social Anxiety shouldn't be a turn off in the first place." Then you go on about comparing social anxiety to desperation? Lol, no not all people who have social anxiety are desperate or the exact definition of desperation.
> 
> So, now I feel like all you're stating is that social anxiety shouldn't be seen as a turn off to women/men when it comes to dating. Well, if you're someone with social anxiety who isn't too desperate and have some grasp of confidence then it would be a turn on. But it depends on what the other person you're attracting is going to be attracted to. Some of us love desperate social anxiety guys/girls if we are the same, others will be more attracted to a guy/girl with a little less desperation and a little more confidence or some kind of a positive balance.


Maybe you don't understand what the word "desperate" means since English isn't your native language (well English isn't my native language either but I been in US since 1994). When I say the word "desperate" what I mean is some sort of crisis. Like for example if I have a math test tomorrow and I haven't studied for a month, then I am "desperate" to memorize everything I have missed. On the other hand if it is a school break and I want to study for my pleasure, then no I am not desperate. Thats why I don't understand why you say desperate guys want sex. Lack of sex is not a crisis, not by a long stretch. On the other hand, complete and utter loneliness IS a crisis, so yes I am desperate bacause of loneliness but that has nothing to do with sex. In fact, being desperate -- whether it be math exam OR loneliness -- I don't see how one can possibly care about something as irrelevant as sex. And yes social anxiety has everything to do with being desperate: thats what the word desperate means, it refers to some sort of anxiety.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> You're overthinking again (just like the novels you wrote earlier in the thread). If a guy is super rich and famous that changes everything entirely. Do you really think women would have lined up to suck Trump's dick if he wasn't a billionaire?


Maybe overthinking isn't a bad thing after all. The fact that no one else wants to overthink is the reason why they make "default assumptions" that are so obviously wrong and fail to see what is in front of their face.

If being rich changes everything, that shows that an excuse "well the guy isn't interested" is just that, an excuse. If a celebrity can be interested in those ordinary girls, how much more the ordinary guy would be interested in them? So when they say an ordinary guy isn't interested, they are basically lying to themselves to justify their own choice of rejecting him.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> Maybe overthinking isn't a bad thing after all. The fact that no one else wants to overthink is the reason why they make "default assumptions" that are so obviously wrong and fail to see what is in front of their face.
> 
> If being rich changes everything, that shows that an excuse "well the guy isn't interested" is just that, an excuse. If a celebrity can be interested in those ordinary girls, how much more the ordinary guy would be interested in them? So when they say an ordinary guy isn't interested, they are basically lying to themselves to justify their own choice of rejecting him.


Lol man. You can keep on overthinking, or you can go make something happen. Keep the analysis in the physics lab.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Lol man. You can keep on overthinking, or you can go make something happen. Keep the analysis in the physics lab.


And what should I do to "make something happen"? If I knew how to do it, I would have had it happen and I wouldn't be overthinking then. The whole point is that I am stuck and I don't know what to do about it.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> Maybe you don't understand what the word "desperate" means since English isn't your native language (well English isn't my native language either but I been in US since 1994). When I say the word "desperate" what I mean is some sort of crisis. Like for example if I have a math test tomorrow and I haven't studied for a month, then I am "desperate" to memorize everything I have missed. On the other hand if it is a school break and I want to study for my pleasure, then no I am not desperate. Thats why I don't understand why you say desperate guys want sex. Lack of sex is not a crisis, not by a long stretch. On the other hand, complete and utter loneliness IS a crisis, so yes I am desperate bacause of loneliness but that has nothing to do with sex. In fact, being desperate -- whether it be math exam OR loneliness -- I don't see how one can possibly care about something as irrelevant as sex. And yes social anxiety has everything to do with being desperate: thats what the word desperate means, it refers to some sort of anxiety.


Um okay....


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Um okay....


What does this supposed to mean?


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> What does this supposed to mean?


I'm sorry! It means I agree to disagree! We're okay, it just seems like what you explain doesn't register to me 100% and vice versa. Doesn't mean anything bad, I just have my own experience with the word 'desperate' and you have your own experience and mine and yours don't seem to match up but they do sound similar!


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> I'm sorry! It means I agree to disagree! We're okay, it just seems like what you explain doesn't register to me 100% and vice versa. Doesn't mean anything bad, I just have my own experience with the word 'desperate' and you have your own experience and mine and yours don't seem to match up but they do sound similar!


Well that is the exact reason why I am ostracized. People agree to disagree hence they leave me be and avoid me. I wish you could instead discuss with me. I just don't see what is so confusing about what I say anyway. To me what I say is so OBVIOUS that I am genuinely confused as to why no one else sees it this way. Maybe it is just something really simple I am not communicating due to wording or whatever? I wish we could communicate better because what I am trying to say isn't a rocket science, I promise.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> And what should I do to "make something happen"? If I knew how to do it, I would have had it happen and I wouldn't be overthinking then. The whole point is that I am stuck and I don't know what to do about it.


Do anything it doesn't ****ing matter what it is. You're going in circles here and accomplishing nothing, when you could be pursuing something that's actually important to you. Ask yourself what it is that you truly want, and do whatever it takes to get it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> *Ask yourself what it is that you truly want,* and do whatever it takes to get it.


Okay, I want friends, girlfriend and physics career. As far as physics career its out of your expertize. But how about friends and girlriend part, what should I do to get there?


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> Okay, I want friends, girlfriend and physics career. As far as physics career its out of your expertize. But how about friends and girlriend part, what should I do to get there?


Ok now you're finally asking the right questions. It's quite simple really, just do your absolute best to be more social. It will be hard at first, but you can literally change into a social person if that's what you truly want. And that will come from talking to as many people as you can, smiling more, and also taking care of the superficial things like hygiene, clothing, and physical fitness. If you really want to make a change, you'll do whatever it takes, and you really can get there.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Ok now you're finally asking the right questions. It's quite simple really, just do your absolute best to be more social. It will be hard at first, but you can literally change into a social person if that's what you truly want. And that will come from talking to as many people as you can, smiling more, and also taking care of the superficial things like hygiene, clothing, and physical fitness. If you really want to make a change, you'll do whatever it takes, and you really can get there.


Obviously I am not going to disagree with this one: when someone tells me the opposite that "you will never get there so just focus on something else" I get mad, so obviously the only other alternative is to believe someone like you that tells me its possible. But just curious: since its social anxiety site, why didn't everyone else here become more social by following your advice? Or are you saying my case is less serious than theirs?

In any case, the only thing I am thinking of at the moment is tomorrow morning I will go to different church than the ones I usually go to (will switch from Messianic and church of God to Adventist) in hopes maybe it will have more young people (the other ones I been to were mostly older people). But I have no info about demographics of churches other than trial and error. That, plus last year I been to church with lots of young people and it didn't help me.

By the way one thing I noticed is that people that talk to me THE LEAST are young females. In the churches I been going to past few weeks, old people, of both genders, DID talk to me, but that doesn't really count. But do you think maybe I should stick to old people and hope that they will get me to talk to young women? How likely would that happen and how well should I know them in order to ask for that sort of favor?


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> Obviously I am not going to disagree with this one: when someone tells me the opposite that "you will never get there so just focus on something else" I get mad, so obviously the only other alternative is to believe someone like you that tells me its possible. But just curious: since its social anxiety site, why didn't everyone else here become more social by following your advice? Or are you saying my case is less serious than theirs?
> 
> In any case, the only thing I am thinking of at the moment is tomorrow morning I will go to different church than the ones I usually go to (will switch from Messianic and church of God to Adventist) in hopes maybe it will have more young people (the other ones I been to were mostly older people). But I have no info about demographics of churches other than trial and error. That, plus last year I been to church with lots of young people and it didn't help me.
> 
> By the way one thing I noticed is that people that talk to me THE LEAST are young females. In the churches I been going to past few weeks, old people, of both genders, DID talk to me, but that doesn't really count. But do you think maybe I should stick to old people and hope that they will get me to talk to young women? How likely would that happen and how well should I know them in order to ask for that sort of favor?


Well most people just want to whine and complain without doing anything to change their situation, which is kind of the vibe I got from you at first to be honest, but maybe that's not who you are after all. I never go to church, so I can't really comment on that. But younger girls tend to be more superficial, so if you don't represent what they find attractive, then it stands to reason that they wouldn't really interact with you. The window for chasing young girls might have closed for you, unless you just want vapid relationships that lead nowhere, or you just want sexual gratification. I would suggest that you find someone compatible with you, but even still it can't hurt to talk to younger girls, because even if you **** up you'll learn from your mistakes.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> Maybe you don't understand what the word "desperate" means since English isn't your native language (well English isn't my native language either but I been in US since 1994). When I say the word "desperate" what I mean is some sort of crisis. Like for example if I have a math test tomorrow and I haven't studied for a month, then I am "desperate" to memorize everything I have missed. On the other hand if it is a school break and I want to study for my pleasure, then no I am not desperate. Thats why I don't understand why you say desperate guys want sex. Lack of sex is not a crisis, not by a long stretch. On the other hand, complete and utter loneliness IS a crisis, so yes I am desperate bacause of loneliness but that has nothing to do with sex. In fact, being desperate -- whether it be math exam OR loneliness -- I don't see how one can possibly care about something as irrelevant as sex. And yes social anxiety has everything to do with being desperate: thats what the word desperate means, it refers to some sort of anxiety.


Okay, so then crisis shouldn't be a turn off in the first place? No, it still is. Depends if the other person is also in a crisis and if they are and you are too then you will connect just fine! Now if someone was in a crisis and someone else was not, then depending on how they feel about the situation then they would offer to help the person in crisis and they will connect just fine too! Depends what kind of a crisis it is and its severity.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> Obviously I am not going to disagree with this one: when someone tells me the opposite that "you will never get there so just focus on something else" I get mad, so obviously the only other alternative is to believe someone like you that tells me its possible. But just curious: since its social anxiety site, why didn't everyone else here become more social by following your advice? Or are you saying my case is less serious than theirs?
> 
> In any case, the only thing I am thinking of at the moment is tomorrow morning I will go to different church than the ones I usually go to (will switch from Messianic and church of God to Adventist) in hopes maybe it will have more young people (the other ones I been to were mostly older people). But I have no info about demographics of churches other than trial and error. That, plus last year I been to church with lots of young people and it didn't help me.
> 
> By the way one thing I noticed is that people that talk to me THE LEAST are young females. In the churches I been going to past few weeks, old people, of both genders, DID talk to me, but that doesn't really count. But do you think maybe I should stick to old people and hope that they will get me to talk to young women? How likely would that happen and how well should I know them in order to ask for that sort of favor?


Here are 2 potential plans of action you could use.

1) If you get into a conversation with someone you're hoping could become a friend or girlfriend you could just be honest and tell them something like "I just wanted to say that if I've said anything that offended you or seemed strange I apologise, I find talking to people hard sometimes, so if I say anything odd please let me know, I'm trying to improve" if it's a woman you could add "I'm just nervous because I'd like to get to know you better" for extra awwww points. If she's not interested but seems friendly you could say something like "OK, thanks for talking to me anyway. Before I go could I ask you a favour?" she'll probably say something like "what" or "it depends what it is" then just ask if there's anything about the way you approached her or spoke to her that she would recommend you change in the future, take the feedback on board, thank her again and leave. In both the case of friendships or relationships rejection is a possible outcome but anyone who wouldn't be willing to try and help you would never have made a good friend or girlfriend for you anyway.

2) If you're talking to older people, once again be honest. Tell them that you're struggling to start friendships/relationships, that you think you're doing something wrong and you were wondering if they could give you some advice.

Now the key to both of these pieces of advice is *not to be so d*mn argumentative*. Listen to what they tell you, don't try to convice them that they are wrong, learn, improve, succeed then enjoy your success.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

SwtSurrender said:


> Okay, so then crisis shouldn't be a turn off in the first place? No, it still is. Depends if the other person is also in a crisis and if they are and you are too then you will connect just fine! Now if someone was in a crisis and someone else was not, then depending on how they feel about the situation then they would offer to help the person in crisis and they will connect just fine too! Depends what kind of a crisis it is and its severity.


I still don't know whether you really heard me or just pretend to hear me. Do you simply replace one word with the other or do you actually UNDERSTAND what I am trying to say? Do you realize that *wanting sex is NOT a crisis* If you do, then how come you don't think that someone who is legitimately in a crisis deserves other people's help?


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I still don't know whether you really heard me or just pretend to hear me. Do you simply replace one word with the other or do you actually UNDERSTAND what I am trying to say? Do you realize that *wanting sex is NOT a crisis* If you do, then how come you don't think that someone who is legitimately in a crisis deserves other people's help?


Just because you see sex as irrelevant, you don't have to attack her. For the majority of people, sex *is* relevant, highly relevant, so of course they're going to feel it's a crisis when they don't get it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Just because you see sex as irrelevant, you don't have to attack her. For the majority of people, sex *is* relevant, highly relevant, so of course they're going to feel it's a crisis when they don't get it.


I became Christian at 22, I started being desperate at 21. Yet that first year of my desperation when I wasn't Christian yet, sex wasn't something I was desperate about either. Yes, back at 21 I guess I would have taken an opportunity for sex if it was presented to me, but that just wasn't something I was obsessing over when I was thinking of girls not talking to me.

I mean okay, let me give you food as illustration. So for religious reasons I won't eat pork and see food. But there is no prohibition against cheese cake for example. Now suppose somehow I was deprived of cheese cake for several years. Would I be desperate? No of course not. Or even better example, there is some Russian food that you can't just find in US, like syrniki, zefir, etc. I visit Russia maybe once in a couple of years. When I do, I get that food the first chance I get. But am I desperate about not having that food when I am in US? Nope. I guess to me sex would fall into that same category if I wasn't religious, thats why I don't understand how people can be desperate about not having sex.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I became Christian at 22, I started being desperate at 21. Yet that first year of my desperation when I wasn't Christian yet, sex wasn't something I was desperate about either. Yes, back at 21 I guess I would have taken an opportunity for sex if it was presented to me, but that just wasn't something I was obsessing over when I was thinking of girls not talking to me.
> 
> I mean okay, let me give you food as illustration. So for religious reasons I won't eat pork and see food. But there is no prohibition against cheese cake for example. Now suppose somehow I was deprived of cheese cake for several years. Would I be desperate? No of course not. Or even better example, there is some Russian food that you can't just find in US, like syrniki, zefir, etc. I visit Russia maybe once in a couple of years. When I do, I get that food the first chance I get. But am I desperate about not having that food when I am in US? Nope. I guess to me sex would fall into that same category if I wasn't religious, thats why I don't understand how people can be desperate about not having sex.


I wasn't questioning you, man. I'm aware you don't see sex as something that's relevant to your life. But for some people it's not like wanting a certain type of food, it's like wanting *any* food. It's like like saying 'well I'm happy not eating cheesecake', it's like 'I haven't eaten a thing in years'. What you feel about wanting a partner is desperation; what others feel about wanting sex is desperation.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> I mean okay, let me give you food as illustration. So for religious reasons I won't eat pork and see food. But there is no prohibition against cheese cake for example. Now suppose somehow I was deprived of cheese cake for several years. *Would I be desperate? No of course not.*


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Well most people just want to whine and complain without doing anything to change their situation, which is kind of the vibe I got from you at first to be honest, but maybe that's not who you are after all.


I think its two sides of the same coin actually. The driving force is the same: wanting for things to get better. But then it takes a will power to go about it in a healthy way. I guess at least in my case large part of it is instant gratification. If I was told that if I do something then tomorrow -- in a literal sense of within 24 hours from now -- my life would be better, then I won't be complaining. But when I know it would take months of years to change, then what am I supposed to do within those months and years? I guess if I could lock myself in my room for those months, it would be easier to wait. But if I am exposed to the outside world, then the moment I overhear people being nice and friendly with each other -- anything as simple as having normal conversation which I am never a part of -- then I can't help but want to complain about it. I mean how would you feel if you see people enjoying themselves and know that you, personally, can't be part of it until you do some work that takes few months?

But perhaps I am wrong maybe it doesn't take few months? After all I have had people who gave up on me telling me "its been few months and you are in exact same situation as you were when we first met". I was always like "What? Did you expect I would change THAT fast?" But okay lets be more positive. So IF they are right, that is a good news: in ONLY few months my whole life would be different. WOW. So what exactly should I do for this to happen?



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> I never go to church, so I can't really comment on that. But younger girls tend to be more superficial, so if you don't represent what they find attractive, then it stands to reason that they wouldn't really interact with you.


Well what about the two younger girls I overheard yesterday in Panera Bread? They weren't talking about sports or fashion or sex. Nope. They were talking about normal, genuine, things, pertaining to their friends. Obviously I couldn't hear most of what was said, but their conversation didn't sound superficial at all. They sounded like normal genuine human beings and thats why it was so painful they didn't see I was another genuine human being (okay I didn't approach them so its not like they were rude towards me, but I guess I assume they would be if I did). I mean that is just last example, but I see plenty of younger people that have genuine conversations like that so its very hard to believe that they are superficial. Maybe "some" young people are, but not all. By the way I was never attracted to loud partiers or anything like that. The type of women I always liked are a combination of youth and shyness (by shyness I mean that shy people can actually have deeper feelings, I mean I would classify those girls I heard as on a shy side).

Or are you saying that their "superficial" aspect applies to people they avoid? As in, as long as someone "qualifies", then they can be genuine in terms of getting to know that person as individual, but when it comes to disqualifying someone then they can be disqualifying them based on the most superficial reasons on the planet? As in, those two girls had an hour conversation about all aspects of their friends personal lives, so obviously they were okay with their flaws and all that, but if one day one of those people forgets to take a shower then its like "oooppppssss they didn't take a shower, so they are not human any more, forget everything I ever said about them". Is this what you are trying to allude to?



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> The window for chasing young girls might have closed for you,


See, first you were telling me that I have to stop whining and start doing things, but now you are all of a sudden saying that certain windows of opportunity are closed off. Well THAT is precisely why I am whining. I wish I could take those windows of opportunity back because I only get to live once and I don't like missing out on experiences.



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> unless you just want vapid relationships that lead nowhere, or you just want sexual gratification.


Okay so is THIS why people assume I am after sex when I talk about wanting younger women? I guess then I am missing something. Why would being with younger women be "more or less okay" for one night stands but not for something long term? Are you saying we aren't on the same page in our lives? Okay, in my particular case we might be: since I couldn't get a job as a theoretical physicist and went back to graduate school to do second ph.d. (first one was in physics, second one will be in math). So basically I am not happy with my whole entire life, not just relationships; I am not happy with my life academically either. What I want is a time machine to go back to my 20-s and redo everything both academic and social. So, this being the case, why would a woman in her 20-s be a bad match for me?

By the way today I went to that Adventist church that I mentioned yesterday. And I ran into a situation that is both nice and sad at the same time. So I ran into a girl that went to Adventist Students For Christ on campus with me back when I was doing my first Ph.D. at the University of Michgian (right now I am in New Mexico so it was pretty nice to run into someone from Michgian, I really miss that state as I miss my past in general and it was also nice to ask her about other students that went to those Bible studies and where they are now). I didn't recognize her but she did, and she talked to me throughout the meal, which really made my day. But the sad part is that she is married. So opportunity lost. But this led me to realize one glaring exception to what I thought about wanting women in their 20-s: if I could date someone whom I met back in Minnesota or Michigan back when we were BOTH in our 20-s, I don't care if she is late 30-s right now, I would totally date her. What I want is to get back to the past. One way of getting back to the past is to date someone in the 20-s, the other way is to date someone whom I knew back when I was in my 20-s. But then again we get to the sad part: like this girl I met today, she is married. Most likely most other people whom I met in their 20-s are either married or divorced or with kids. In my case none of those three things apply to me. So wouldn't this be another reason why I might actually be a better match for someone in their 20-s?

Well unless you say that the real thing that makes me a bad match is physical, but then why would girls call guy superficial for liking physical things yet they do the same thing to guys?


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> Well unless you say that the real thing that makes me a bad match is physical, but then why would girls call guy superficial for liking physical things yet they do the same thing to guys?


It's called being a hypocrite. As for everything else you said, holy **** I have no idea how long it takes you to type that up, since it's obviously clearly thought out and you use perfect punctuation and so on. Your ****ing IQ is holding you back man. STOP OVERTHINKING AND JUST TAKE ACTION!!!


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

ya, it bothers me a lot whenever women mention these reasons as to why they would never approach a guy or make the first move, ask a guy out, they always say "because guys are hunters", or "because guys have traditionally courted women"


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

JaegerLover217 said:


> ya, it bothers me a lot whenever women mention these reasons as to why they would never approach a guy or make the first move, ask a guy out, they always say "because guys are hunters", or "because guys have traditionally courted women"


It's true though. Men insert and women receive, both literally and figuratively. That's the way of the world it's sperm to the egg know what I mean?


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> It's true though. Men insert and women receive, both literally and figuratively. That's the way of the world it's sperm to the egg know what I mean?


ya the classic penis-vagina argument


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

causalset said:


> I still don't know whether you really heard me or just pretend to hear me. Do you simply replace one word with the other or do you actually UNDERSTAND what I am trying to say? Do you realize that *wanting sex is NOT a crisis* If you do, then how come you don't think that someone who is legitimately in a crisis deserves other people's help?


Okay, I am done here. Apologies.


----------



## Don Aman (Apr 5, 2014)

I haven't read a word of this thread but the title made me laugh. If you've ever been pursued by someone who gave off any kind of desperate vibe you'd know how uncomfortable a feeling it is.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> It's true though. Men insert and women receive, both literally and figuratively. That's the way of the world it's sperm to the egg know what I mean?


Well human beings aren't sex toys and I wish that humans, of both genders, were treated as HUMANS -- meaning as having all spectrum of emotions and needs, not just the ones that fit your "mechanical" picture that you just illustrated.



PumpkinCheesecake said:


> It's called being a hypocrite. As for everything else you said, holy **** I have no idea how long it takes you to type that up, since it's obviously clearly thought out and you use perfect punctuation and so on. Your ****ing IQ is holding you back man. STOP OVERTHINKING AND JUST TAKE ACTION!!!


That only illustrates my point. I for one would prefer, by far, a woman who writes long well thought out emails to the one who throws one-liners with deliberate spelling errors as it is fashionable nowdays. I think Big Bang Theory did a big disservice to intellectuals by portraying them as savants without feelings. I view things the opposite: I think well thought out messages are signs of substance and emotional depth; same goes for shyness and so forth.

But anyway, back to the question I asked you in the previous reply, what exactly do you mean by taking action? What kind of action? I went to church and didn't find anyone besides people much older than me and people my age that are married. I go to class and no one talks to me. So where else should I go? To the bar? I already made a post about going to the bar and people responded by saying that the woman I talk to in the bar would likely to forget the entire conversation next day since she is drunk. So what else?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> Here are 2 potential plans of action you could use.
> 
> 1) If you get into a conversation with someone you're hoping could become a friend or girlfriend you could just be honest and tell them something like "I just wanted to say that if I've said anything that offended you or seemed strange I apologise, I find talking to people hard sometimes, so if I say anything odd please let me know, I'm trying to improve" if it's a woman you could add "I'm just nervous because I'd like to get to know you better" for extra awwww points. If she's not interested but seems friendly you could say something like "OK, thanks for talking to me anyway. Before I go could I ask you a favour?" she'll probably say something like "what" or "it depends what it is" then just ask if there's anything about the way you approached her or spoke to her that she would recommend you change in the future, take the feedback on board, thank her again and leave. In both the case of friendships or relationships rejection is a possible outcome but anyone who wouldn't be willing to try and help you would never have made a good friend or girlfriend for you anyway.
> 
> ...


I already done it before. I guess some of the things that people said were

1. Focusing on myself rather than the other person I talk to
2. Asking the other person direct questions about their life
3. My voice being too loud and too fast 
4. Always studying math/physics thus looking antisocial
5. Dressing sloppily.

I guess if you look at 1 and 2 it makes it quite difficult to fix both at the same time. If I talk about myself then I fall into 1, when I talk about the other person then I fall into 2. I guess what it boils down is that I have to learn to do small talk and then I would be okay with either of those two subjects, but small talk is what I find hard.

As far as voice being loud and too fast, I actually tried to correct it but it took physical effort on my tongue to the point that my mouth was tired after only half a minute of talking that way. I guess I can try to if its worth it but this brings me to better question: suppose I do learn to speak in quiet voice; will people give me another chance or will they still remember how my voice was loud and avoid me? Same goes for other items on the list.


----------



## reese444 (Dec 28, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> It's true though. Men insert and women receive, both literally and figuratively. That's the way of the world it's sperm to the egg know what I mean?


wat about homeosexuals


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

causalset said:


> I mean okay, let me give you food as illustration. So for religious reasons I won't eat pork and see food. But there is no prohibition against cheese cake for example. Now suppose somehow I was deprived of cheese cake for several years. Would I be desperate? No of course not.


Even asexuals would be desperate without cake, especially asexuals in fact.

/meme


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

reese444 said:


> wat about homeosexuals


Even in gay relationships there are "tops" and "bottoms."


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

causalset said:


> But anyway, back to the question I asked you in the previous reply, what exactly do you mean by taking action? What kind of action? I went to church and didn't find anyone besides people much older than me and people my age that are married. I go to class and no one talks to me. So where else should I go? To the bar? I already made a post about going to the bar and people responded by saying that the woman I talk to in the bar would likely to forget the entire conversation next day since she is drunk. So what else?


Be proactive. People aren't going to talk to you because you feel desperate/lonely. Make some damn effort to get you want.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Even in gay relationships there are "tops" and "bottoms."


You realise it's not that simple right? Guys often do both.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> I already done it before. I guess some of the things that people said were
> 
> 1. Focusing on myself rather than the other person I talk to
> 2. Asking the other person direct questions about their life
> ...


OK, this is where you have to try and find the "why" behind the "what" they've given you as we discussed earlier. So let's try to do that.

1. I would assume that they are trying to tell you that you should stop obsessing over what they've said/done or why they've said/done it, *why*? Because generally speaking people don't like to feel like you're psycho analysing them.

2. I would assume that they are trying to tell you that you should show an interest in others and their opinions, *why*? Because it shows that you're interested in what they have to say not just what you think they should be saying.

3.*Why*? Because if you speak too loudly it can be intimidating or seen as aggressive and if you speak too fast it makes you sound hyperactive or potentially manic and makes it hard to follow what your saying, it can be overwhelming.

4. *Why*? Because if you are always studying it gives the impression that you don't want to be disturbed/interrupted, it introduces an additional psychological barrier they would have to overcome in order to talk to you.

5. *Why*? Because if you don't look like you take care of yourself or take any pride in your appearance many people will assume that you are miserable, generally speaking people don't like to be around miserable people as it brings them down.

Once you feel you have understood the "whys" you can then make a new list that makes more sense to you.

1. Don't psycho analyse people externally (just think about it in your own time).
2. Show an interest in the other person, don't try to invalidate their opinions.
3. Try to speak with a calm/relaxed but clear speaking voice.
4. Try to appear more approachable, say hello to people, try to smile and make small talk when the situation arises (you would have to practise this in order to improve your skills).
5. Take pride in your appearance.

As for whether people will give you a second chance, it depends on the person. Even if you do everything perfectly some people still won't like you, there aren't any universal formulas for socialising it's more of a matter of probability (What is most likely to work? What would be the best response in this situation?).


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

Persephone The Dread said:


> You realise it's not that simple right? Guys often do both.


In relationships guys will do both, but generally a guy either wants to **** or get ****ed.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Atheism said:


> Hi. Well, because it's not a choice who you are attracted to. Confident PEOPLE are always attractive, in general, to other people.


Nope, not to me. I find it intimidating. I find shyness endearing and relatable.

In any case, confidence is a dime a dozen. Everyone is either sure of themselves, or pretending to be. When a character trait is common, it becomes devalued. I don't think I've ever met a ''desperate'', uncomfortable person, let alone any that's shown any interest in me, but it'd be a nice break from all the narcissists.


----------



## willtowin (Feb 1, 2017)

JaegerLover217 said:


> ya, it bothers me a lot whenever women mention these reasons as to why they would never approach a guy or make the first move, ask a guy out, they always say "because guys are hunters", or "because guys have traditionally courted women"


Sounds unfair, but that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. We just have to adjust and practice socializing to avoid being alone


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

ScorchedEarth said:


> Nope, not to me. I find it intimidating. I find shyness endearing and relatable.
> 
> In any case, confidence is a dime a dozen. Everyone is either sure of themselves, or pretending to be. When a character trait is common, it becomes devalued. I don't think I've ever met a ''desperate'', uncomfortable person, let alone any that's shown any interest in me, but it'd be a nice break from all the narcissists.


Yes that's why I say "in general". Of course there will always be exceptions/different preferences. I'm not saying "all" people.

I'm very confused with what you're saying though, are you trying to say that confident people are a dime a dozen and therefore less admired? I couldn't tell if that's what you meant. Though I'm sure you're just speaking for yourself and not everyone. That's not to say people aren't drawn towards those who _relate_ to them. Of course they do. I just mean confidence is generally more appreciated. (By the way there are some "uncommon" traits out there, that I'm sure no one, not even you, would want in a person.) In fact, though, while we are on the subject of common vs uncommon traits - I'm not even arguing how many confident people there are vs. shy people, I'm only arguing what people generally want. So I certainly don't think being shy is "rare" or anything. In fact, it's VERY common.

Another thing about confidence, though: There's nothing narcissistic about it. It can become that, but, confidence and narcissism are NOT synonyms of each other. It's just human nature, there are just some traits/behaviors/ways of living that people are very drawn to on a general. This isn't economics. It's not supply and demand. It's just, people are naturally drawn to people who give good vibes, lol.

Sorry for kind of ditching this thread casualset... and your last one too. It is absolutely nothing against you, I like to try to help, but your walls of text are a little overwhelming. Because it's not just one wall of text, then it's like, 3-4 more of them before I can reply to even one of them. Overall my advice to you is, as you already know, I think you overthink things too much and need to just step back and relax sometimes.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

1. People find desperation unattractive, fer various reasons. If ye be desperate pretend ye aren't. 

2. Confidence be comely to almost all ye pirates. 

3. No matter how many walls o text get thrown at 'tis, it isn't changin'.


----------



## regimes (Aug 24, 2011)

littleghost said:


> I think people sense desperation and think someone will be needy and clingy. Most people don't like needy and clingy. It sort of relates to the fact that a guy in a relationship gets hit on more than a single guy. I've seen that mentioned in posts and on TV. He has a girlfriend, is no long desperate, and is more confident. This makes him more attractive to girls.


yeah, but also needy and clingy are not healthy traits in a relationship.

ideally, in a healthy relationship, each partner enjoys or prefers being with the other, but not to the extent that they are no longer their own person, or can no longer enjoy activities or even life itself alone.

needy and clingy can lead to total dependence and nobody wants to date someone who depends on you _that_ much for their happiness.

a healthy person will have a balance of their relationship, their work, and their hobbies. too much of any of these can lead to unhappiness or strife.


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

ya because apparently its far more important for a guy to have a life


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

regimes said:


> yeah, but also needy and clingy are not healthy traits in a relationship.
> 
> ideally, in a healthy relationship, each partner enjoys or prefers being with the other, but not to the extent that they are no longer their own person, or can no longer enjoy activities or even life itself alone.
> 
> ...


That part makes sense. But guess what: in my past relationships I weren't needy and clingy. The needy and clingy part tended to be the first couple of months of the relationship, but then later down the road (especially after 6 month mark) it became the other way around: I needed a little bit of space to catch up on my physics while the girl was the one that seemed to be taking too much of my time.

What I am trying to say is that things are circumstantial, and thats why I keep saying "I will change once I am in a relationship" (and past relationships prove that to be the case, at least with needy/clingy part). Most people don't believe I can change because the way I communicate comes across as inflexible and fixated (just look at my lengthy posts). But the only reason I come across that way is that I feel like others don't see my point hence I go out of my way to push the point I think others don't see. But this doesn't change the fact that this point is relevent only to certain situations and not others.

By the way here is something really ironic. So few weeks ago I got really mad at certain people for the fact that in response to my concerns about relationships they said "well just focus on career". But then, if you go all the way back to 2009, around a couple of months before my second ex broke up with me, I had a really long fight with her in terms of what should be number 1 in my life: I was saying career should be number 1 and she was saying relationship should be number 1. And I was just as mad at her for telling me to make relationship number 1 as I am mad at the people right now for telling me to focus on my career. So see how much I can change depending on my relationship status?

Now, the underlying philosophy behind this is the same. My approach is that, whatever part of my life in which I am doing THE WORST is the one that I need to focus on, while other people's philosophy is just the opposite: they think what I am doing the worst on is what I should give up. Part of the reason why I was so mad at my ex for telling me relationship should be number 1 is because I suspect that she wouldn't have been telling me this if I was doing better on my career. And, similarly, the reason I am so mad at people for telling me to focus on career as of now is because I don't think they would be telling me this if my social skills were better. So I guess people's philosophy is that if I do well in one thing and bad in the other thing then I should just drop whatever it is I am bad at and focus on what I am good at. And I strongly disagree. I think I should do just the opposite: take for granted what I am good at, and obsess/try to fix about what I am bad at.

This by the way connects really well with my disagreement regarding desperate people. In the same way as other people think I should focus on part of my life that goes well and give up on the part of my life I am doing badly, in that same manner they think I should focus on people that are doing well and give up on people that are doing badly. I disagree on both accounts. Just like I think that part of my life where I am doing badly is the most deserving of my focus and effort, in the same way I think that people that are desperate are the most deserving of everyone else's focus and effort.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Causalset, read LonelyLurker's post and take it all in. You can do this small talk. It's give and take on talking about yourself and the other person. You have to try it multiple times and feel it out to get better. You won't get it right the first few times but it can be done. Also, do you have a therapist? Someone you could role-play with to do a lot of social practice in a safe environment.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> OK, this is where you have to try and find the "why" behind the "what" they've given you as we discussed earlier.


Trying to understand the "why" is precisely why I am overanalyzing things, and you told me not to do it in one of your recent replies. Could it be that you didn't understand that my intention of overanalyzing is to understand the "why"? If so, do you think others also misunderstand my intentions and thats why they get so impatient when I analyze? If they knew I want to understand the "why" as you put it, would they have been more patient?



LonelyLurker said:


> 1. I would assume that they are trying to tell you that you should stop obsessing over what they've said/done or why they've said/done it, *why*? Because generally speaking people don't like to feel like you're psycho analysing them.
> 
> 2. I would assume that they are trying to tell you that you should show an interest in others and their opinions, *why*? Because it shows that you're interested in what they have to say not just what you think they should be saying.


I think you switched around 1 and 2, unless one or both of us misunderstood what was said.

But in any case, as far as "direct questions" part, the example I was thinking of came from what I was told by someone leading the Bible studies when I asked him. So the example of direct question that he gave was when we did the introductions and some guy came from Japan and I kept asking him how the Japanese houses look like. So that won't be overanalyzing "him". And in fact thats the pattern I notice myself: even if I don't analyze either myself or the other person but, instead, analyze some "third party" issue the conversation tends to end. So maybe it does go back to the subject of small talk?

As far as what you said with regards to listening to what other person says as opposed to what I want them to say, that might be onto something. Like in case of Japanese houses, I been fascinated about those questions for a long time; so even though on the surface I was talking about him more than me, in actuality I just used him as an opportunity to talk about the subject "I" found fascinating. But then the next question is: if I steer clear of the subjects I find fascinating, how else can I keep conversation going? I thought I was supposed to be able to bring something to the table? I guess in most people's cases they know a little bit about wide range of topics, but in my case I know virtually nothing about things unless those are the things I been fascinated with to some extend or the other (for example, few years ago I ran into reference to Michael Jackson and I didn't know who that was until people explained it to me). So I am thinking maybe that is part of why I talk about my fascinations. I mean, otherwise the issue of Japanese houses won't be so important anyway: that is something I can google. The whole point is that I just didn't know how else to keep conversation going. And that goes back to the skill on how to do small talk. I guess one other option I can think of is just let him speak and ask questions each time he mentions something I never heard of. But wouldn't this type of thing be off-putting as well?



LonelyLurker said:


> 3.*Why*? Because if you speak too loudly it can be intimidating or seen as aggressive and if you speak too fast it makes you sound hyperactive or potentially manic and makes it hard to follow what your saying, it can be overwhelming.


I understand it. But now better question: what to do to reverse this effect of loud voice I already created? I can't change the past!



LonelyLurker said:


> 4. *Why*? Because if you are always studying it gives the impression that you don't want to be disturbed/interrupted, it introduces an additional psychological barrier they would have to overcome in order to talk to you.


But then what about all the other students that study in Starbucks? I guess, for some reason, its common to study in Starbucks but not in university caffeteria. But you see there is a reason why I don't like studying at starbucks: if I overhear a couple of people having cozy conversation I would be jealous I am not part of it and that would be all I am thinking of; on the other hand in caffeteria its more like white noise. But I guess it is circular: if I were to make friends, then I wouldn't mind studying at starbucks any more since then those things won't make me jealous; on the other hand "not" studying at starbucks is what prevents me from making friends since it makes me study everywhere else and look like a nerd.

I guess now that I have an office keys maybe I should change my habbits and study at my office. But then again one of the two officemates that I have is a female, so if it will turn out she won't be friendly towards me then it would make me want to avoid office too. By the way my experience with my female officemate so far was that, on the one hand, when I walk in, she doesn't greet me and doesn't say hello and act like I am not there; but on the other hand during a couple of times when I asked her some questions about what she was studying she was more than happy to speak for few minutes as opposed to give a one-setntence-brushoff, so I don't know how to read her.

But in any case, back to the "why" aspect: why is it when I study at the office then people are less likely to assume that I don't want to be disturbed than if I study at caffeteria? I mean, I am studying in both cases, am I not? So could it be that its not the studying itself that makes them think that but rather the fact that they labeled me as abnormal. As in, since I study at caffeteria I must be abnormal and abnormal people don't want to be disturbed. But why would they make that sort of assumption?



LonelyLurker said:


> 5. *Why*? Because if you don't look like you take care of yourself or take any pride in your appearance many people will assume that you are miserable, generally speaking people don't like to be around miserable people as it brings them down.


That happened to be the case. If I was happy with my life (and in particular didn't have constant academic crisis and was happier socially) I would dress better. But you see this aspect would change if I were to make friends. If I had friends I wouldn't be spending late hours at night on the internet, this would make me more organized academically, so I would have time to make my clothes in order and so forth.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

PumpkinCheesecake said:


> Even in gay relationships there are "tops" and "bottoms."


Good point, which brings me to where I disagree with the way in prisons people define who is gay and who is straight. In prison they think that active partner is straight because he inserts while the passive one is gay since he has it inserted into him. But in my case I don't care about insertion part, the way I perceive male-ness and female-ness has nothing to do with sexual organs altogether. Thats why I think both are gay since both are with the other man. As a matter of fact, in prison case, I would say the passive partner is straight since its done against his will while the active partner is gay since he is the one who actually wanted to be with the other man. But people in prison disagree with me, they think that being gay is the same as being feminine, thats why if the passive partner says that it was done against his will and he didn't want it, it wouldn't fly: the very fact that he allowed something to be done against his will shows that he is weak aka gay. But thats not how I think of it: I don't think being weak makes someone gay. I think being gay means WANTING to be with the other man, period; regardless of whether you are weak or strong. So yes, in prisons the active partner is stronger than passive one; but that doesn't change the fact that the active partner is the one that is more gay (if not the only gay).

In fact let me tell you something interesting. In Russian prisons they have an elaborate set of rules that the prisoners shouldn't violate in order not to be labeled as gay; and once they are labeled as gay, thats a lifelong label, and they would have to eat at the separate table, sleep at the separate spot, and so forth, from other prisoners. So anyway, one of the things that would make prisoner gay is if he admits that he had oral sex with his wife (regardless of who played what role). Why? Well, if he was the one that was leaking wife's vagina, then the problem is that her vagina has his sperm in it (even if he had sex with her several hours prior it doesn't matter: by Russian prison philosophy once something is contaminated with sperm its contaminated for life) so apparently he doesn't mind his own sperm entering his mouth, thus he must be gay. On the other hand, if the wife was sucking on the prisoner's dick, then the problem is that he will get his sperm into his mouth when he will kiss her afterwords; and once again it doesn't matter how long he waits before he kisses her, he will get a sperm regardless (or so do Russian prisoners think) so once again he must be gay.

But now look at this contrast: so a prisoner who has oral sex with a woman is gay, yet a prisoner who participates in sex with a male is straight, as long as he takes an active role. Now don't you think this is twisted?! I certainly do! But then again, if you totally ignore all aspects of male and female OTHER THAN things like sperm then it begins to make sense. So an active partner in gay sex is totally blind, so he doesn't see that the person he has sex with is a male he just doesn't. The only way for him to sense the male-ness is through sperm -- to which he is ultra-sensitive to the point that he would feel the remains of the sperm even several days later. So since the anus of the prisoner with whom he has sex with doesn't have sperm in it (actually it does -- from previous prisoners -- but apparently they overlook that part, so lets overlook it too for a moment so we can finish their train of thought) he simply doesn't perceive the male-ness of his partner, so he is straight. But if he has an oral sex with his wife and there are leftover sperm on her mouth, then he perceives the male-ness of his wife, and none of her female looks can possibly counter it because he is blind, remember; hence his oral with his wife makes him gay.

But like I said I totally disagree with this outlook of things. I don't even think of sexual organs when I think of women. In fact there was a time period in my early teens when I didn't even know that women's sexual organs are different from men's, yet this didn't stop me from liking the girls in my class. So for me, there is something about the girl that I like just for the fact that she is a girl. I don't care who inserts what into whom (well a woman can't insert her penis since penis doesn't exist on the first place and if it did then I wouldn't consider her a woman regardless of whether she inserts it or not; but if she were to insert a sex toy into me or what not I have nothing against it). In fact, if anyone tells me "well an active gay can close the eyes and pretend its a woman" I would say "well then a passive gay can pretend that its a woman giving him enema (and he doesn't even have to close his eyes since whoever is giving him enema is behind him and he doesn't have eyes on the back of his head)". I guess other people would respond to this by saying that they wouldn't want a woman to give them enema because then the woman would be taking a man's role since she would be the one doing the inserting (and if oral sex with a woman would make them gay, how much more would a woman giving them enema make them gay?!) But you see in my case I don't care who does the inserting, all I care is that I want her to be a woman. So no, I won't have sex with a man under any circumstances, regardless if I am taking active or passive role, it is physically disgusting in both cases. But I would enjoy every aspect of a woman: if the woman gives me enema I would enjoy it too as long as it is IN FACT a woman (well yes I said I don't believe in sex before marriage, but I am just talking hypotheticals, as in, if I was married, or if I was atheist, what kinds of things I would enjoy and what kinds of things I wouldn't).

Going back to the subject, my disagreement with Russian prison system also ties together with my disagreement with regards to gender roles. Remember your analogy between insertion and playing dominant role in a relationship? Well in the same way as I don't care if a woman inserts anima into me, I also don't care if she is the one playing dominant role in a relationship. The only thing I care about is for her to be a woman, period. So if she plays dominant role, good: it means I can get a woman without doing approaching. But apparently other guys disagree with me and side with Russian prisons instead, and thats why they react badly when women approaches them. Yet I have to pay the price for THEIR delusions.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Atheism said:


> Yes that's why I say "in general". Of course there will always be exceptions/different preferences. I'm not saying "all" people.


Ha, I just saw the word ''always'' and chose to go with that. ''Generally always'' has always sounded kind of contradictory to me.



Atheism said:


> I'm very confused with what you're saying though, are you trying to say that confident people are a dime a dozen and therefore less admired? I couldn't tell if that's what you meant. Though I'm sure you're just speaking for yourself and not everyone.


Yeah, I meant personal preference. Of course there are uncommon traits like sociopathy that are best avoided, but I'm just drawn to misfits in general.

You're saying shyness is common? Not in my experience. At the very least, if it's common then most shy people aren't genuine enough to not pretend they don't have it. I'm talking visible difficulty and discomfort in interacting with others. Extremely rare in my experience, and always a personable trait as far as I'm concerned.



Atheism said:


> There's nothing narcissistic about it. It can become that, but, confidence and narcissism are NOT synonyms of each other.


Aren't they? Doesn't sound like it when I hear about ''loving yourself unconditionally''. I suppose it's in how you define confidence and narcissism. I'd say healthy confidence comes from intellectual honesty - including acnowledging your weaknesses compared to other people. Even if means acnowledging a general inferiority, if life hasn't gone your way so far. But what I keep hearing about confidence is that you're supposed to love yourself unconditionally, not compare yourself to others and have a high self-esteem regardless of anything else. Sorry, but that's not honest in my book. If you think that way, you've put on blinders for the sake of maintaining your ego.


----------



## PumpkinCheesecake (Jan 19, 2017)

Honestly man you should be a writer, you have a lot of interesting thoughts (I'm being genuine in saying this btw).


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

ScorchedEarth said:


> Ha, I just saw the word ''always'' and chose to go with that. ''Generally always'' has always sounded kind of contradictory to me.
> 
> Yeah, I meant personal preference. Of course there are uncommon traits like sociopathy that are best avoided, but I'm just drawn to misfits in general.
> 
> ...


Yeah well I mean either way, nobody who actually says "always" means, literally, always. You may have taken that too literal, because that's impossible, I though this fact was just a given. Unless you are stating an actual fact, like, all people will die one day.

Yeah idk where you're from, I'm from the northeast coast of America, and I've met TONS of people in my life who struggle with all sorts of problems -- especially shyness. I've met people who you would look at and say, they definitely have social anxiety disorder. Social anxiety disorder is likely the most common mental illness out there. I mean I don't know, look for them in the arts? Painting, music, dance, drama, etc.? I'm an art student and I'm surrounded by shy people.

Sure you can define confidence and narcissism as you want but there's still a dictionary definition for them both. I agree I think it takes a lot of courage for someone to admit a flaw. Not even confidence, just sheer courage. I admire that. But on the contrary, there's nothing wrong with loving and accepting yourself for any flaws you have. I think you are seeing it too much as an "ego" thing rather than somebody who just wants to feel good and accept who they are. Besides, if unconditionally loving yourself means NOT comparing yourself to others, how could that be egotistical, then? In that case you are not saying you're better than anyone. You just love yourself, which is EXTREMELY healthy.

Even if you meet friends who have social anxiety disorder as well, wouldn't you also want them to be happy?

Also even if people who are shy aren't being honest enough for you, for instance pretending to be confident or someone they're not, try to understand a little bit where that comes from. They are unhappy with their lives feeling inferior and being shy and they want to change. I don't see how this is either honest or dishonest. It is simply a conscious effort to change into whoever they personally want to be (so long as it doesn't hurt others) and I highly admire that.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

I had to shorten some of your quotes to meet the character limit but I'm responding to the full thing.



causalset said:


> Trying to understand the "why" is precisely why I am overanalyzing things, and you told me not to do it in one of your recent replies...


Analysing (which is what I'm recommending) is fine but over analysing is counter productive, will hold you back and ultimately prevent you from truly accepting what is true, that's what you should avoid. Once you understand why people seem to respond to certain things just start to use it, there's no need to argue that people shouldn't be the way they are etc. I wonder about these things too but if I'm actually interacting with someone none of those further thoughts come into play, just what I know actually works (most of the time).

Would others appreciate your analysing if you explained it, probably not. I suppose you could try to see if they're open to analysing their own thoughts/behaviours (by asking a probing question and judging the response) but if they aren't you have to respect that and just do it by yourself when you're alone.



causalset said:


> I think you switched around 1 and 2, unless one or both of us misunderstood what was said.


I didn't mix them up, if you do start to understand people better (which I hope you do) you'll come to realise 2 things (among others).

1. A lot of people prefer to make something up instead of just saying "I don't know".
2. What people say doesn't always match what they do, so you have to compare the two giving what they do the most importance.

So even though number 1 was "Focusing on myself rather than the other person I talk to" given that you've noticed that talking about what you want instead of what they want doesn't seem to go over well that would indicate that that isn't what they actually mean/want. So what could they _really_ mean? Obviously it isn't easy for me to answer this question as I've never met the people who told you that, I've never met you and I didn't observe the relevant interactions. However, given my life experiences along with your style of interrogation (based on your posts here) my educated guess would be that they don't like being psycho analysed.

My new number 2 is still directly linked to the point they raised so doesn't really need further explanation (though I could if you wanted me to).



causalset said:


> But in any case, as far as "direct questions" part, the example I was thinking of came from what I was told by someone leading the Bible studies when I asked him. So the example of direct question that he gave was when we did the introductions and some guy came from Japan and I kept asking him how the Japanese houses look like...


What they mean is something like "I've never been to Japan, how's it different to America?" or "How long ago did you move, is there anything you miss?" Neither of those questions is too probing nor too impersonal and they are open ended. Depending on his response you'll be able to see if he actually wants to talk to you (if he doesn't you just have to accept it and move on), and if he does you can continue the conversation, that's all small talk is really.



causalset said:


> As far as what you said with regards to listening to what other person says as opposed to what I want them to say, that might be onto something. Like in case of Japanese houses, I been fascinated about those questions for a long time; so even though on the surface I was talking about him more than me, in actuality I just used him as an opportunity to talk about the subject "I" found fascinating. But then the next question is: if I steer clear of the subjects I find fascinating, how else can I keep conversation going?...


The ideal situation is to do both, if he wants to talk about Japan you could eventually ask something like "I've always liked Japanese houses, do many people in Japan actually live in the traditional houses we see on TV?". Again, if he's willing to talk about it great if not that's just how it goes sometimes.

It's amazing how long you can keep a conversation going by doing nothing more than asking questions and facilitating the other person's answers, you don't need extensive general knowledge.



causalset said:


> I understand it. But now better question: what to do to reverse this effect of loud voice I already created? I can't change the past!


Just try to match the volume of the person you're talking to, you might find it uncomfortable but that's what you'll have to do. I sometimes find talking to people exhausting too but that's what I need to do in order to do it well, C'est la vie.



causalset said:


> But then what about all the other students that study in Starbucks? I guess, for some reason, its common to study in Starbucks but not in university caffeteria....


I would assume that the people who are studying alone in Starbucks (other coffee shops are available) also spend time _not_ studying alone in Starbucks and that's when they would be making new friends. If they are there with friends then it's also socialising in addition to studying.



causalset said:


> I guess now that I have an office keys maybe I should change my habbits and study at my office. But then again one of the two officemates that I have is a female, so if it will turn out she won't be friendly towards me then it would make me want to avoid office too...


Just be generally pleasant, say "good morning", smile if she's talking to you (a natural understated smile, not a full tooth exposure clown smile) and say "good bye" at the end of the day. Even if it isn't reciprocated, it's a good way to carry yourself. Have you ever asked people in your classes if they would be interested in studying together? You could pretend that you need a little help fully understanding something if comes to that.



causalset said:


> But in any case, back to the "why" aspect: why is it when I study at the office then people are less likely to assume that I don't want to be disturbed than if I study at caffeteria?...


Most likely because in the office people are more likely to require your assistance but in the cafeteria people aren't likely to interrupt you unless they actively want to chat.

Stop the over analysing, it's like saying "Why would she want to go for drinks unless I'm so boring that she wants to get drunk and forget that she ever met me?" Stop jumping to conclusions.



causalset said:


> That happened to be the case. If I was happy with my life (and in particular didn't have constant academic crisis and was happier socially) I would dress better. But you see this aspect would change if I were to make friends...


I can't believe I'm going to say this but... maybe you should fake it until you make it. Pretend that you're happy enough to care about your appearance which will make it easier to make friends (as they will be more likely to assume that you can bring additional happiness into their lives) which will in turn mean that you don't need to fake it anymore.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Atheism said:


> Yeah idk where you're from, I'm from the northeast coast of America, and I've met TONS of people in my life who struggle with all sorts of problems -- especially shyness. I've met people who you would look at and say, they definitely have social anxiety disorder. Social anxiety disorder is likely the most common mental illness out there. I mean I don't know, look for them in the arts? Painting, music, dance, drama, etc.? I'm an art student and I'm surrounded by shy people.


If social anxiety is so common, how come people assume I don't want to talk instead of assuming I am just shy?


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

causalset said:


> If social anxiety is so common, how come people assume I don't want to talk instead of assuming I am just shy?


I said it's the most common mental disorder. It's not "every day" common, otherwise why would it be a mental illness or abnormality? It's still not "normal".

Also I don't know what gives you the idea that people assume such things. Maybe they DO think you're just shy. Either way, in both assumptions, no one is going to just randomly talk to you. There's no telling how you're going to respond to someone so they just leave you alone. Also people aren't mind readers, if you don't LOOK like you want a conversation, then no one will assume you want one. They won't initiate/continue a conversation.

What I've noticed, no offense, this is personal experience myself -- if you are acting shy and uncomfortable in a conversation, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is for coming off that way. People will try to leave the conversation. The discomfort you feel in social settings becomes contagious.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Desperation suggests a low value person. If someone is desperate it implies they don't have other options, and no other options = a social proof from others they aren't desirable. Someone who is confident, and knows they are attractive and aren't desperate likely suggests a consensus they _are_ desirable to others.

There is also something here about what it means when a desperate person picks someone else, what does that say about the person they pick and go after? (basically that they are all the desperate person could get, its a signal that the desperate person thinks _they_ are low value too).

"I am a super desperate, low value person, I have tried absolutely everyone else and they rejected me, you are the final option, pls respond. Pls respond. Pls respond."

Yeh, no.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Desperation suggests a low value person. If someone is desperate it implies they don't have other options, and no other options = a social proof from others they aren't desirable. Someone who is confident, and knows they are attractive and aren't desperate likely suggests a consensus they _are_ desirable to others.
> 
> There is also something here about what it means when a desperate person picks someone else, what does that say about the person they pick and go after? (basically that they are all the desperate person could get, its a signal that the desperate person thinks _they_ are low value too).
> 
> ...


Actually what you said is a coin with both sides. The fact that other people's approval gives me a value is precisely why I am so desperate for approval. And that is also why when people are telling me "don't worry what other people think, the main thing is to be happy with yourself" I totally reject this advice: like you said, my value IS represented by what other people think, so when people are telling me otherwise they are being hypocritical. Here is where hypocricy lies. On the one hand they say "desperate people are wrong for depending on other people's approval rather than their own self esteem" and on the other hand they say "well since society rejected those people there must be a good reason for it". What? I thought you said its bad to listen to other people's opinion, so why are you doing it yourself?

The other thing you might say in response to my claim that I need friends in order to raize my social value is "good, so you admitted you have low value, so why do you want to deceive others by having friends?" Okay my response is: "what if the situation is just the opposite: I DO have things to offer but the NOT having friends part is what deceives people into thinking that I don't". So in other words I want friends in order for people not to dismiss me out of hand for not having them before they ever had a chance to get to know me. Yes I have things to offer as a unique individual that go beyond share number of friends. But I need friends in order for people to bother to look as to what it is I have to offer.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Atheism said:


> I said it's the most common mental disorder. It's not "every day" common, otherwise why would it be a mental illness or abnormality? It's still not "normal".


Well being completely devoid of feelings isn't normal either. So lets put it this way:

Autistic savant = lack of emotional needs
Social anxiety = shyness

I put the word "savant" for a reason because yes I have Asperger (which is on autism spectrum) but I am not a savant and those common stereotypes such as Sheldon who has no feelings don't apply to me. So between "autistic SAVANT" and "social anxiety" I would pick "social anxiety" label.

Now my problem is that everyone else labels me as savant and decide I have no feelings. But why, out of two things BOTH OF WHICH are mental disorders, do they pick LESS common one? Do you think the movies such as Big Bang Theory which popularized autistic savants are to blame? Do you think I would have been better off in the 90-s when autism was unheard of?

Incidentally I WAS doing better off in the 90-s. I personally can think of three reasons why:

1. I was much younger so I got more of a leeway
2. I wasn't desperate "yet" I became desperate in 2001 and thats exactly when people started to look down at me
3. Autism was popularized and thats what hurts me (see above)

What do you think?



Atheism said:


> Also I don't know what gives you the idea that people assume such things. Maybe they DO think you're just shy.


What gives me this idea is that I got a feedback from others to this effect. For instance some people said I am "antisocial" also there was a girl who rejected me on the basis that she wants to feel loved (thus implying I can't love) and there is another girl that also asked me if I ever was in love because apparently Sheldon can't feel love (I never watched big bang theory so I have no idea but based off of what she said about Sheldon I am not like him at all yes I can feel love I just am too shy to show it). Also there were people who, in response to my complaints, were telling me "it doesn't matter what people think anyway" which shows that they assume that I don't have MY OWN needs to socialize and the only reason I am even concerned about it is other people's opinion. Then also on this board, I don't remember who said it, but someone said "if girls will see you can like them they might approach you"; now they probably didn't notice it since they don't read into words the way I do, but just re-read this quote once again: so they don't think I can like them? Wow, that just confirms that they all assume I am Sheldon.



Atheism said:


> Either way, in both assumptions, no one is going to just randomly talk to you. There's no telling how you're going to respond to someone so they just leave you alone.


And what is the worst possible thing that can happen in terms of my response? Do they think I would grope them or something? Incidentally, sometimes I wonder whether they think that: I noticed that if I walk down the street and I look at a girl, she looks away, speeds up her walk, crosses the street, etc. If they indeed think that, then this is the other misunderstanding, even worse than the one about my not having emotions. The two things I want them to know is

1. Yes I have emotional needs I just am shy to express them
2. No I never considered groping anyone or doing anything else inappropriate

Those two things should be taken for granted, but I am wondering whether people truly know them when it comes to me.

But if you are going to say no they don't think I would do that, and they are only worried about the verbal response, then what would be the type of thing I might say verbally that would be bad? Do they think I will talk about their boobs? That would be another misconception: no I would never do that either. But if I were to give the situation a benefit of the doubt and assume they know I won't comment on their boobs or anything like htat, then what else is left? What is left is my response being awkward. But this goes right back to what I was asking: what is so bad about someone being awkward? I am not on stage or anything like that. So who cares whether I talk awkwardly or not, just communicate! Do they get so bothered by awkwardness because it IMPLIES something, such as it implying that I have no feelings? But then this goes right back to the misconceptions I talked about earlier. If people were to stop reading into things and judging then maybe awkwardness won't be so bad after all.



Atheism said:


> Also people aren't mind readers, if you don't LOOK like you want a conversation, then no one will assume you want one. They won't initiate/continue a conversation.


What I look like depends on the interpretation on the observer. Suppose I take a picture that looks like cancer. Now suppose I were to show that picture to someone who never heard of cancer. Would it look like cancer to that person? No of course not. So if people's background knowledge is that social anxiety is far more common than autistic savants, then the way I act would "look like" social anxiety. But if people have watched Big Bang Theory too much, then I would "look like" Sheldon who doesn't want to talk.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@causalset the thing you need to understand is though there are good reasons why desperation is seen as unattractive it doesn't really matter _why_ it is, when most people believe something is the case, its the case. *You can't alter it*.

Desperation is unattractive, end of story. If you appear desperate you will appear unattractive. If you catch yourself behaving in a desperate way, the only course of action you have is to alter your behaviour so you appear less desperate.

No point debating it, no point trying to convince people they are wrong (this just seems more desperate), its just how it is.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> But if people have watched Big Bang Theory too much, then I would "look like" Sheldon who doesn't want to talk.


OMG, you need to stop comparing yourself to Sheldon. I don't watch it anymore but he clearly had feelings and emotional needs, so anyone who says that you don't isn't comparing you to him.

1. Sheldon relies on his roommate for everything. Driving, food, friendship. He's lost without him.
2. He gets upset, he gets jealous, he gets angry, he gets happy.
3. He has a gf that he loves (or did last time I saw it)

Maybe he's a little awkward and slow at understanding social nuances at times but he's not some robot that needs programming.

Also do you realize that every time someone mentions gay people you start talking about Russian prisons? I get that you're anti-LGBT but maybe you could tone down the comparison to criminals.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> OMG, you need to stop comparing yourself to Sheldon. I don't watch it anymore but he clearly had feelings and emotional needs, so anyone who says that you don't isn't comparing you to him.
> 
> 1. Sheldon relies on his roommate for everything. Driving, food, friendship. He's lost without him.
> 2. He gets upset, he gets jealous, he gets angry, he gets happy.
> ...


Okay then thats not the impression of Sheldon that that woman led me to believe. So the woman who compared me to Sheldon she kept asking me whether I ever felt love because she heard that people with Asperger can't feel love. Also when I was telling her how part of the reason I wanted to date her is that she had Ph.D., and also how it was important to me that my third ex was Miss Nebraska, she decided that I don't have feelings and I only have lowndary list. The time when she was comparing me to Sheldon was when she wanted me to look up something online and I said my phone doesn't have internet access and she was surprised about it because Sheldon was good in technology and I wasn't.



TheWelshOne said:


> Also do you realize that every time someone mentions gay people you start talking about Russian prisons? I get that you're anti-LGBT but maybe you could tone down the comparison to criminals.


You completely misunderstood my intention. Its true that I disapprove of LGBT, but if I were going to talk about it I would have stated plainly "I disapprove of LGBT for reasons X, Y and Z"; I would never bring up graphic discussions as tools of producing disgust, thats just not how I operate.

The reason I bring up Russian prisons is because I find the topic interesting from the theoretical psychology point of view, which has nothing at all to do with expressing disgust about anything. I mean, in a pure logical/intellectual level, don't you find it paradoxical that the active gay partners are labeled as straight while the passive ones to whom it was done against their will are labeled as gay? And the reason I mentioned it this particular time is not because the topic of homosexuality was brought up but rather because the topic of difference between tops and bottoms was brought up, and so Russian prison system would provide an interesting study on this.

By the way I think Russian prison system is an interesting study tool not just about homosexuality but about human psychology in general. What we would normally call "unwritten rules" in Russian prisons become very explicit and thats why one can look into "explicit" rules in Russian prisons in order to understand "implicit" rules elsewhere. Like the fact that the person that is accused of being gay is the one "to whom" it was done rather than the one "who" was doing it parallels the way elsewhere in society people are ostracized for being victims as opposed to being victimizers. Nice guy finish last thing (which has nothing to do with homosexuality) is in fact analogous to prison punks being "nice guys" in prison system. And also in Russian prisons you are to avoid all contact with gays other than sexual one or else you become gay yourself. This parallels how in the free society people avoid talking to outcasts for the fear of being outcasted themselves. But in the free society we can debate whether that is the case or not; in Russian prisons we know for sure thats the case, which is why I say Russian prisons provide an excellent study aid for this.

And yet another analogy is that in Russian prisons often people are "converted into gay" for a punishment for other things, such as collaborating with administration, stealing from members of one's own gang, and so forth. Yet despite the fact that none of those things have anythign to do with being gay, they are declared gay. The analogue in free society is what happened when I was doing my first Ph.D. when my mom was thinking that the professors that didn't want to work with me for "academic" reasons in reality were put off by "social" things but they had to say its academic since that was the only acceptable explanation. So in the same way as in free society they have to say its academic, in prison case they have to say the person is gay; but in neither case either of those things are true. Incidentally I disagree with my mom's assessment, I think that in case of my schooling it "was" in fact academic. But still I am sure there are plenty of other examples where I would agree with her I just can't think of any off the top of my head.


----------



## Virgo (Jun 27, 2016)

causalset said:


> Well being completely devoid of feelings isn't normal either. So lets put it this way:
> 
> Autistic savant = lack of emotional needs
> Social anxiety = shyness
> ...


Well look firstly I cannot argue Big Bang Theory with you. I never watched that show. I don't know who Sheldon is.

Also no, no one thinks you're going to grope them or start talking sexual to them. That escalated a little quickly, didn't it? I just mean they want to avoid awkward conversations. It's not a matter of "what's the worst that can happen."

People don't think that way. You cannot communicate this to the entire world. I don't know what else you want me to tell you.

You expect people to just take all the responsibility. Why don't you ask YOURself what's the worst that can happen? And you start approaching women with no fear even if you're socially awkward? Maybe it will turn out good. Besides no one is reading into things as much as you are.

It keeps ALMOST turning out good. Like I said I think what will help you most, what you need, is to keep going on these dates and talking to women but learn through each failure that you need to tone it down more and more, and not be so overwhelming to these women. That's what I think you need. To keep trying.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> when most people believe something is the case, its the case.


So when most people believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was flat?! Is that what you are saying?!

This very mentality is what I find the most frustrating. So since most people believe I don't have social needs, then I don't have social needs. Well except that I do, but my actual feelings that I actually feel are non-existent because most people don't acknowledge them?!


----------



## naes (Nov 1, 2013)

atheism said:


> *well look firstly i cannot argue big bang theory with you. I never watched that show. I don't know who sheldon is.
> *
> also no, no one thinks you're going to grope them or start talking sexual to them. That escalated a little quickly, didn't it? I just mean they want to avoid awkward conversations. It's not a matter of "what's the worst that can happen."
> 
> ...


What. The. ****.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Atheism said:


> Like I said I think what will help you most, what you need, is to keep going on these dates and talking to women but learn through each failure that you need to tone it down more and more, and not be so overwhelming to these women. That's what I think you need. To keep trying.


The problem is that I only get a chance to go on a date maybe a couple of times a year, most women don't respond to my dating site profile even though over the internet I have no problem sending them emails first (I only have problem approaching women first face to face). But then again, no need to be fixated on dating sites; in fact I would have preferred if I could meet women face to face, such as in class or elsewhere. But it keeps not happening. If I could "keep going on dates" as you put it, meaning have several dates a week, then I wouldn't be dwelling out so much on each one and who knows maybe I would be lucky one of those times. So my main problem is to get foot through that door and actually have those dates.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

naes said:


> What. The. ****.


I never watched that show either. So now its two of us


----------



## naes (Nov 1, 2013)

causalset said:


> i never watched that show either. So now its two of us


you are missing out!


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> So when most people believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was flat?! Is that what you are saying?!
> 
> This very mentality is what I find the most frustrating. So since most people believe I don't have social needs, then I don't have social needs. Well except that I do, but my actual feelings that I actually feel are non-existent because most people don't acknowledge them?!


No, I mean in the context of what I was talking about, I wasn't saying that an appeal to popularity isn't a logical fallacy.

I meant in the context of attractiveness, obviously. You can't alter whether people find desperation attractive by arguing with them about it. You know what people also find unattractive? People telling them they are wrong about what they find attractive or unattractive.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> Actually what you said is a coin with both sides. The fact that other people's approval gives me a value is precisely why I am so desperate for approval. And that is also why when people are telling me "don't worry what other people think, the main thing is to be happy with yourself" I totally reject this advice: like you said, my value IS represented by what other people think, so when people are telling me otherwise they are being hypocritical. Here is where hypocricy lies. On the one hand they say "desperate people are wrong for depending on other people's approval rather than their own self esteem" and on the other hand they say "well since society rejected those people there must be a good reason for it". What? I thought you said its bad to listen to other people's opinion, so why are you doing it yourself?


I think this is something that you struggle with, you conflate what *is* with what *ought* to be. Just because someone tells you how something *is* generally perceived it doesn't necessarily follow that they think this is how the said thing *should* be perceived.

You need to learn how to separate the two.

I have value because of who I am as a person. Would I like friends? Sure. But I have value without them and would become no more valuable with them (unless they made me improve as a person obviously). I would gain social capital but that's not how I quantify my value as a person.

That's what people are trying to tell you, don't use social capital to quantify your value as a person, but, if you wan't to increase your social capital then you should be aware of certain truths.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> I think this is something that you struggle with, you conflate what *is* with what *ought* to be. Just because someone tells you how something *is* generally perceived it doesn't necessarily follow that they think this is how the said thing *should* be perceived.
> 
> You need to learn how to separate the two.
> 
> ...


I see your point with regards to separating my actual value with the falsely perceived value by others. But the thing is that anybody else that understands this separation wouldn't be fooled by society's standards either. So since at least 50% of people I talk to are giving me this advice, this means that 50% of population know to separate the two. But, if that was so, then every second person I meet would be able to be my friend despite my low popularity. Yet in practice this doesn't happen this way. So apparently 49% of people don't really mean it when they say this to me, herein lies hypocricy.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> I see your point with regards to separating my actual value with the falsely perceived value by others. But the thing is that anybody else that understands this separation wouldn't be fooled by society's standards either. So since at least 50% of people I talk to are giving me this advice, this means that 50% of population know to separate the two. But, if that was so, then every second person I meet would be able to be my friend despite my low popularity. Yet in practice this doesn't happen this way. So apparently 49% of people don't really mean it when they say this to me, herein lies hypocricy.


Remember what I said about the difference between what many people say and what they do. Lots of people are hypocrites, what now? How will you maneuver that and try to succeed in spite of it?

Plus, remember that separating the two doesn't necessarily mean that they are mutually exclusive so they're not necessarily contradicting themselves anyway.

It's understandable if your happiness is linked to your social networks (friends and family etc.) but your self worth shouldn't be. You can be lonely/miserable and still think that you're a good person that is worthwhile (even if that view doesn't appear to be shared by others).


----------



## rm123 (Mar 21, 2016)

Haven't followed this thread for a while, but maybe the issue is people who are "desperate" (& I don't really like using that word) believe that getting a partner will solve all their problems and change their world, etc, so then they project that onto anyone who gives them attention and become obsessed. You don't need another person to make you happy, but when that person DOES comes along it will just click, so stop worrying about it


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Okay then thats not the impression of Sheldon that that woman led me to believe. So the woman who compared me to Sheldon she kept asking me whether I ever felt love because she heard that people with Asperger can't feel love. Also when I was telling her how part of the reason I wanted to date her is that she had Ph.D., and also how it was important to me that my third ex was Miss Nebraska, she decided that I don't have feelings and I only have lowndary list. The time when she was comparing me to Sheldon was when she wanted me to look up something online and I said my phone doesn't have internet access and she was surprised about it because Sheldon was good in technology and I wasn't.


Well telling a woman that she's the one for you because of her academic record is very mechanical. That won't help your case. Also it's never been said that Sheldon actually has Aspergers or autism of any kind, so that one woman's opinion means very little.



> The reason I bring up Russian prisons is because I find the topic interesting from the theoretical psychology point of view, which has nothing at all to do with expressing disgust about anything. I mean, in a pure logical/intellectual level, don't you find it paradoxical that the active gay partners are labeled as straight while the passive ones to whom it was done against their will are labeled as gay? And the reason I mentioned it this particular time is not because the topic of homosexuality was brought up but rather because the topic of difference between tops and bottoms was brought up, and so Russian prison system would provide an interesting study on this.
> 
> By the way I think Russian prison system is an interesting study tool not just about homosexuality but about human psychology in general. What we would normally call "unwritten rules" in Russian prisons become very explicit and thats why one can look into "explicit" rules in Russian prisons in order to understand "implicit" rules elsewhere. Like the fact that the person that is accused of being gay is the one "to whom" it was done rather than the one "who" was doing it parallels the way elsewhere in society people are ostracized for being victims as opposed to being victimizers. Nice guy finish last thing (which has nothing to do with homosexuality) is in fact analogous to prison punks being "nice guys" in prison system. And also in Russian prisons you are to avoid all contact with gays other than sexual one or else you become gay yourself. This parallels how in the free society people avoid talking to outcasts for the fear of being outcasted themselves. But in the free society we can debate whether that is the case or not; in Russian prisons we know for sure thats the case, which is why I say Russian prisons provide an excellent study aid for this.
> 
> And yet another analogy is that in Russian prisons often people are "converted into gay" for a punishment for other things, such as collaborating with administration, stealing from members of one's own gang, and so forth. Yet despite the fact that none of those things have anythign to do with being gay, they are declared gay. The analogue in free society is what happened when I was doing my first Ph.D. when my mom was thinking that the professors that didn't want to work with me for "academic" reasons in reality were put off by "social" things but they had to say its academic since that was the only acceptable explanation. So in the same way as in free society they have to say its academic, in prison case they have to say the person is gay; but in neither case either of those things are true. Incidentally I disagree with my mom's assessment, I think that in case of my schooling it "was" in fact academic. But still I am sure there are plenty of other examples where I would agree with her I just can't think of any off the top of my head.


The Ancient Greeks had the same system - the masters wanted to relieve sexual tension and tended to use their young apprentices for it; the apprentices were considered deviant, the masters weren't. It's an extension of the gender roles idea that men are dominant and women are submissive. Any man who 'takes' something is submissive therefore is a woman and/or effeminate. Any man who is just acting as a 'manly man' would, using others for his sexual pleasure, is dominant and therefore is a man. But since Putin has made it impossible to be LGBT in Russia, I'm not surprised the prisons there still have such a backwards attitude.

I'm curious where you get all this information from though.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

rm123 said:


> Haven't followed this thread for a while, but maybe the issue is people who are "desperate" (& I don't really like using that word) believe that getting a partner will solve all their problems and change their world, etc,


You hit the nail on its head. Thats exactly how I feel. I feel that if I were to have a girlfriend she would solve all of my problems. That is precisely why I say that my reason for a girlfriend is hundrids times more legitimate than sex. Sex doesn't solve any problems, it is just some random physical pleasure on par with eating a candy or something. But having a girlfriend WOULD in fact solve all of my problems. And that is also why I am objecting to women saying I am sexist: if I was sexist against women I wouldn't be thinking a woman can solve all my problems. So the very fact that I think that she would means that I am just the opposite to sexist, since I am willing to give her all that power.

Now I do realize that one problem with thinking that a woman will solve all my problems is that I would be disappointed when it won't happen. But lets look at my past three relationships. Yes, I thought those women would solve all my problems. No, this didn't happen. But I didn't hold it against them that it didn't happen. And PART OF IT did happen: I was, in fact, a much happier person. Was I "happy" person? Nope. I was still complaining about all the other stuff. But I was happi-ER person. So if I am right that a woman would make me happi-ER, why wouldn't that be a good enough of a reason, even if it won't match all of my hopes. Isn't something better than nothing?


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> You hit the nail on its head. Thats exactly how I feel. I feel that if I were to have a girlfriend she would solve all of my problems. That is precisely why I say that my reason for a girlfriend is hundrids times more legitimate than sex. Sex doesn't solve any problems, it is just some random physical pleasure on par with eating a candy or something. But having a girlfriend WOULD in fact solve all of my problems. And that is also why I am objecting to women saying I am sexist: if I was sexist against women I wouldn't be thinking a woman can solve all my problems. So the very fact that I think that she would means that I am just the opposite to sexist, since I am willing to give her all that power.
> 
> Now I do realize that one problem with thinking that a woman will solve all my problems is that I would be disappointed when it won't happen. But lets look at my past three relationships. Yes, I thought those women would solve all my problems. No, this didn't happen. But I didn't hold it against them that it didn't happen. And PART OF IT did happen: I was, in fact, a much happier person. Was I "happy" person? Nope. I was still complaining about all the other stuff. But I was happi-ER person. So if I am right that a woman would make me happi-ER, why wouldn't that be a good enough of a reason, even if it won't match all of my hopes. Isn't something better than nothing?


Can I just point out that there's no incentive for women here? What do they get out of a relationship with you?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Well telling a woman that she's the one for you because of her academic record is very mechanical. That won't help your case. Also it's never been said that Sheldon actually has Aspergers or autism of any kind, so that one woman's opinion means very little.


Okay, one of the math professor whose class I am currently taking is married to another math professor in that same department. And the other math professor whose class I was considering taking (but ended up dropping due to course load being too high with all the other classes) is also married to another math professor in the department. Now keep in mind: I don't even know most professors in my math department, I only know the ones whose classes I was considering taking. And I already ran onto TWO of them that are married to the other prof in the department (and it was two separate couples making it FOUR people). Obviously its not just a coincidence. They probably preferred people in the same profession. So do you think they are all mechanical?

I do realize that you might say that those professors didn't fall in love with each other "because" they have the same profession; rather having the same profession gave them common ground to fall in love over something else -- which is to be contrasted with what I been telling to this girl. But keep in mind: I only knew that girl for few hours. So how could I have possibly known anything I "would" fall in love with her over? What someone sees during first few hours is common ground -- which in our case was the fact that we were both with Ph.D. and then who knows maybe I "would" have liked something else about her if she were to give me time.

As a matter of fact, I did confront her with the following question: I pointed out to her that she hasn't shown me anything to love because she ASSUMED I won't reciprocate it, which made it a self fulfilling prophecy. She then said "I don't show feelings that quickly anyway" Then I said that yes she does: if she thinks its weird that I didn't show feelings quickly then it means that she thinks its a norm to show them quickly so why didn't she do that? She said "I am sorry". I then told her that she is sorry but she isn't changing her ways why not. Then she said she didn't say she isn't changing her ways. Then I asked her so will she change her ways? Then she stopped replying for an hour (she later said she took a nap) but since I didn't know she was taken a nap I went crazy with sending her rude texts so that after her nap was over she told me she doesn't want to date me because of those texts (no it wasn't the girl who delayed her texts a couple of weeks ago, this is a different one, this is the one I talked to 8 months ago but yeah in both cases I was freaking out over texts not getting fast reply).



TheWelshOne said:


> The Ancient Greeks had the same system - the masters wanted to relieve sexual tension and tended to use their young apprentices for it; the apprentices were considered deviant, the masters weren't. It's an extension of the gender roles idea that men are dominant and women are submissive. Any man who 'takes' something is submissive therefore is a woman and/or effeminate. Any man who is just acting as a 'manly man' would, using others for his sexual pleasure, is dominant and therefore is a man.


Russian prisons are a bit different because what you described there are few masters and each has many apprentices. On the other hand in Russian prison there are only few downcasts (thats how they call passive gays) that are being used by everyone else in prison. Sometimes its true that a downcast is being used personally by someone in particular, and also at times a high ranked prisoner (they call him "thief in the law") hires a downcast at the exchange of protection. But still there are other downcasts that are available for public use by everyone. And in general it is sort of like 10% of the downcasts being used by 90% of prisoners.

But still, I do see your point regarding the similarity since, putting the numbers aside, in both cases there is that concept that being active gay is normal and only being passive gay is wrong. And the fact that ancient Greeks and Russian prisons are separated by millenia yet they do the same thing shows that this type of mindset is more fundamental of human nature in general. I am rather curious on how historically it passed throughout the generations. But yeah I disagree with both Russian and Greek version of this. I think being gay is about liking male, as opposed to being weak.



TheWelshOne said:


> But since Putin has made it impossible to be LGBT in Russia, I'm not surprised the prisons there still have such a backwards attitude.


First of all, lets get facts straight. Putin didn't criminalize homosexuality, he only criminalized gay propaganda to minors. And, furthermore, the punishment for gay propaganda isn't prison but simply a fine -- in conversion to American currency the fine is about 30 dollars the last time I checked. So basically the deal is that if you want to give kids to read "heather has two mommies" or "daddy's roommate", you might end up paying 30 dollars. If you aren't showing any of this to the minors, then you don't have to pay a single cent for being openly gay or whatever. On the other hand, if you consider middle eastern countries, India, and so forth, then being gay over there IS a crime that can land you to jail (yes for simply being gay, regardless of any propaganda aspect of it). So why does Russia gets all the blame and not those other countries? And incidentally, the "gay propaganda" law is identical in Russia and Ukraine, yet Ukraine doesn't get blamed for that law only Russia does.

But anyway, thats besides the point. Back to what you were trying to say: I don't understand why a homophobic society would encourage active gays. To me it seems really twisted. In fact I would say that Russian homophobes are different from the American counterparts in at least three aspects:

1. American homophobes dislike both active and passive gays, whereas Russian ones only dislike the passive ones and like the active ones

2. The American homophobes argue that homosexuality can be cured, whereas Russian ones believe that being gay is for life -- thats why downcast is obligated to declare his status, even when he serves in a different prison many years later.

3. American homophobes are trying to push gays to become straight, whereas in Russian prisons they are forcing straight people to become gay by raping them.



TheWelshOne said:


> I'm curious where you get all this information from though.


Back in 2013 I was talking on facebook with a certain girl who got out of abusive relationship with someone who turned out to be sex offender and was going to go to jail for it. He was denying the fact that he did anything wrong, yet he treated jail as not a big deal and wanted her to wait for him, and she was telling him why its a bad idea. One thing she told him is that if they were to have kids it would be bad for kids to be without father first few years (yes I know it sounds silly, I mean the point is that he is a horrible person, period; but I guess she didn't know how to stand up for herself -- she has her own emotional issues -- and thats why she was coming up with those reasons when he was pushing her) and the other thing she told him is that sex offenders get raped in prison and she was worried he would catch STD. Now, I heard some jokes about prison rape before then but I was assuming those were just jokes, I didn't know this thing actually happens. So I was surprised why wouldn't the cops in prison stop the rape or give the rapists additional sentences the way people give sentences elsewhere for rape. So when I was looking at wikipedia page for prison rape I decided to look at both English version and Russian version of the page, and when I looked at the Russian version thats where I saw this whole elaborate system. Interestingly enough, when I were to click on Russian version it woudln't say "prison rape" it would say "downcast" (as in "prison rape" in English version links to "downcast" in Russian version). Since the Russian version has lots of interesting information that just isn't applicable to any other country, eventually they made it so that those two pages no longer link, but they used to link back when I first looked at it, thats how I learned about it.

In any case, from what I learned later through google and so forth, Russian version of prison rape is common knowledge among Russians, much like the American version is common knowledge among Americans. So from Russian person's point of view its actually really surprising why I haven't heard of it prior to this. When I finally learned of prison rape in Russia and talked to people in Russian message boards about it, everyone knew exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Can I just point out that there's no incentive for women here? What do they get out of a relationship with you?


Well in case of my second ex, she lost a lot of blood due to PCOS and she could barely walk, and I was helping her for three months which included cooking food for her and so forth. Now, I am not saying that I want to get into a relationship "in order" to help someone. I am just saying that I am a caring person in general in order to address the concern that I won't contribute to the relationship. Now, how can I possibly know in what way I would have to care for the next woman I would date if I don't even know who she is? Just like in case of second ex, it never crossed my mind I would be doing it to her for the first four months of our relationship (she only became sick at the fifth month). So the real issue is not that I can't name anything I would do at the moment, but rather that women don't think I would do it when the need arrives. And thats where they are wrong. I guess they are judging me by how I carry myself when I walk down the street. But how exactly am I supposed to help the strangers in order for people to see that I am capable of help? Do they simply decide that because I don't smile thats why I will be selfish in a relationship? If so, they are wrong, as my past experience shows.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Okay, one of the math professor whose class I am currently taken is married to another math professor in that same department. And the other math professor whose class I was considering taking (but ended up dropping due to course load being too high with all the other classes) is also married to another math professor in the department. Now keep in mind: I don't even know most professors in my math department, I only know the ones whose classes I was considering taking. And I already ran onto TWO of them that are married to the other prof in the department (and it was two separate couples making it FOUR people). Obviously its not just a coincidence. They probably preferred people in the same profession. So do you think they are all mechanical?
> 
> I do realize that you might say that those professors didn't fall in love with each other "because" they have the same profession; rather having the same profession gave them common ground to fall in love over something else -- which is to be contrasted with what I been telling to this girl. But keep in mind: I only knew that girl for few hours. So how could I have possibly known anything I "would" fall in love with her over? What someone sees during first few hours is common ground -- which in our case was the fact that we were both doing Ph.D. and then who knows maybe I "would" have liked something else about her if she were to give me time.


Well at least you know what I'm gonna say. Those professors likely fell in love while working in the same department. Work place romances are common purely because you spend time together every day and get to know each other. People don't generally say "I'm going to fall in love with a math graduate because I'm also a math graduate." Maybe one of them makes corny math jokes that only the other math graduates would get, and that endeared them to each other. You don't know and neither do I.

But I can guarantee that telling a girl you've only known for a few hours that you want to date her because of her academic history is not a good idea. In fact, don't ever tell a girl that. Even if you've been married for twenty years and she says "causalset, what first attracted you to me?" never answer with "Your PhD"



> As a matter of fact, I did *confront* her with the following question: I pointed out to her that she hasn't shown me anything to love because she ASSUMED I won't reciprocate it, which made it a self fulfilling prophecy. She then said "I don't show feelings that quickly anyway" Then I said that yes she does: if she thinks its weird that I didn't show feelings quickly then it means that she thinks its a norm to show them quickly so why didn't she do that? She said "I am sorry". I then told her that* she is sorry but she isn't changing her ways why not.* Then she said she didn't say she isn't changing her ways. Then I asked her *so will she change her ways?* Then she stopped replying for an hour (she later said she took a nap) but since I didn't know she was taken a nap I *went crazy with sending her rude texts* so that after her nap was over she told me she doesn't want to date me because of those texts (no it wasn't the girl who delayed her texts a couple of weeks ago, this is a different one, this is the one I talked to 8 months ago but yeah in both cases I was *freaking out over texts not getting fast reply*).


Please stop doing this.



> First of all, lets get facts straight. Putin didn't criminalize homosexuality, he only criminalized gay propaganda to minors. And, furthermore, the punishment for gay propaganda isn't prison but simply a fine -- in conversion to American currency the fine is about 30 dollars the last time I checked. So basically the deal is that if you want to give kids to read "heather has two mommies" or "daddy's roommate", you might end up paying 30 dollars. If you aren't showing any of this to the minors, then you don't have to pay a single cent for being openly gay or whatever. On the other hand, if you consider middle eastern countries, India, and so forth, then being gay over there IS a crime that can land you to jail (yes for simply being gay, regardless of any propaganda aspect of it). So why does Russia gets all the blame and not those other countries? And incidentally, the "gay propaganda" law is identical in Russia and Ukraine, yet Ukraine doesn't get blamed for that law only Russia does.


Showing propaganda to minors includes 'being gay in public'. A man can't walk down the street holding hands with his boyfriend because that would be propaganda. Most Western countries are moving forwards with LGBT rights. We know that the Middle East doesn't have a great LGBT track record, that's why we tend to stay away from it as a holiday destination. I've always wanted to go to Russia, it's fascinated me for years. But there's no way in hell I'm going now.



> But anyway, thats besides the point. Back to what you were trying to say: I don't understand why a homophobic society would encourage active gays. To me it seems really twisted. In fact I would say that Russian homophobes are different from the American counterparts in at least three aspects:
> 
> 1. American homophobes dislike both active and passive gays, whereas Russian ones only dislike the passive ones and like the active ones
> 
> ...


American homophobes are, thankfully, a minority these days. A very vocal, very violent minority, but a minority all the same. The US passed same-sex marriage, the overwhelming majority of the Western world accepts gay couples now. I accept that there will always be people against the LGBT community, and all I can do is pray that nobody kills my friends for who they are.



> Well in case of my second ex, she lost a lot of blood due to PCOS and she could barely walk, and I was helping her for three months which included cooking food for her and so forth. Now, I am not saying that I want to get into a relationship "in order" to help someone. I am just saying that I am a caring person in general in order to address the concern that I won't contribute to the relationship. Now, how can I possibly know in what way I would have to care for the next woman I would date if I don't even know who she is? Just like in case of second ex, it never crossed my mind I would be doing it to her for the first four months of our relationship (she only became sick at the fifth month). So the real issue is not that I can't name anything I would do at the moment, but rather that women don't think I would do it when the need arrives. And thats where they are wrong. I guess they are judging me by how I carry myself when I walk down the street. But how exactly am I supposed to help the strangers in order for people to see that I am capable of help? Do they simply decide that because I don't smile thats why I will be selfish in a relationship? If so, they are wrong, as my past experience shows.


I'm gonna get **** for this but I don't think you understand the concept of love.

Yes, caring for someone is a wonderful loving gesture. But if that woman doesn't have a reason to stay with you on a daily basis, there's no reason for her to be your girlfriend. It's not about caring for them when they're sick, it's about taking an interest in their lives, making their day brighter, giving them a reason to look forward to being around you.

What it's not is making them feel bad that they don't have a high enough education for you, or comparing them to girls you knew who had famous connections, or throwing angry tantrums at them when they don't respond the way you want them to, or psychoanalysing every word they say.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? The cons are outweighing the pros here; what do you have that a woman would want, that she can't get from a close friend that she also isn't sleeping with?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Well at least you know what I'm gonna say. Those professors likely fell in love while working in the same department. Work place romances are common purely because you spend time together every day and get to know each other. People don't generally say "I'm going to fall in love with a math graduate because I'm also a math graduate." Maybe one of them makes corny math jokes that only the other math graduates would get, and that endeared them to each other. You don't know and neither do I.
> 
> But I can guarantee that telling a girl you've only known for a few hours that you want to date her because of her academic history is not a good idea. In fact, don't ever tell a girl that. Even if you've been married for twenty years and she says "causalset, what first attracted you to me?" never answer with "Your PhD"


Well how about people being all proud and excited about their school winning a football game? Why isn't that considered mechanical? So if I were to scream "Go physics! Go physics! I got a girl in physics!" would this be less mechanical? Sure it is shallow, but shallow and mechanical are two different things. Perhaps when people think I am being "mechanical" in wanting to date a scientist they aren't realizing the emotions that are behind it (pride and so forth). And instead of asking themselves what might be my emotional motivation they just jump to conclusions that I don't have any and am a robot of some sort.



TheWelshOne said:


> Showing propaganda to minors includes 'being gay in public'. A man can't walk down the street holding hands with his boyfriend because that would be propaganda. Most Western countries are moving forwards with LGBT rights. We know that the Middle East doesn't have a great LGBT track record, that's why we tend to stay away from it as a holiday destination. I've always wanted to go to Russia, it's fascinated me for years. But there's no way in hell I'm going now.


Are you implying you are gay? I didn't know that as I didn't read your other posts.



TheWelshOne said:


> American homophobes are, thankfully, a minority these days. A very vocal, very violent minority, but a minority all the same. The US passed same-sex marriage, the overwhelming majority of the Western world accepts gay couples now. I accept that there will always be people against the LGBT community, and all I can do is pray that nobody kills my friends for who they are.


The way I see this is that the opinions on gay marriage and other things are split along the party lines. So I would say its about 50/50 as both parties hold around half of the populations.



TheWelshOne said:


> I'm gonna get **** for this but I don't think you understand the concept of love.
> 
> Yes, caring for someone is a wonderful loving gesture. But if that woman doesn't have a reason to stay with you on a daily basis, there's no reason for her to be your girlfriend. It's not about caring for them when they're sick, it's about taking an interest in their lives, making their day brighter, giving them a reason to look forward to being around you.
> 
> ...


Okay this is a good point, and you actually touched upon two different issues. One issue are things I am not supposed to do and the other issue is that I should bring something to the table. So do you think this might actually answer my question as to why women are so picky and expect me to be perfect? And the answer is that no, other people aren't perfect either, but they contribute some positives and those positives outweigh their negatives, but if I just sit back and don't bring any positives at all then my negatives, however tiny, would accumulate? In any case, while I see the point you are making, I am a bit puzzled as to how would anyone else who is single respond to the question as to what they have to offer in a relationship?


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Well how about people being all proud and excited about their school winning a football game? Why isn't that considered mechanical? So if I were to scream "Go physics! Go physics! I got a girl in physics!" would this be less mechanical? Sure it is shallow, but shallow and mechanical are two different things. Perhaps when people think I am being "mechanical" in wanting to date a scientist they aren't realizing the emotions that are behind it (pride and so forth). And instead of asking themselves what might be my emotional motivation they just jump to conclusions that I don't have any and am a robot of some sort.


I have no idea what you mean by this, tbh. You can be proud of your girlfriend's academic achievements but you can't focus on them as a reason for dating her. It becomes mechanical when you look at a woman the same way you would look at a computer; when you say 'Yep, memory's good. I like all the built-in software." It's not shallow to prefer someone who'll understand all your physics-speak, but it's shallow to discount a woman because her strengths lie in other disciplines.



> Are you implying you are gay? I didn't know that as I didn't read your other posts.


I'm attracted to men, women and anything in between. But my point about the LGBT in Russia (and the wider world) would still stand if I wasn't part of the community.



> Okay this is a good point, and you actually touched upon two different issues. One issue are things I am not supposed to do and the other issue is that I should bring something to the table. So do you think this might actually answer my question as to why women are so picky and expect me to be perfect? And the answer is that no, other people aren't perfect either, but they contribute some positives and those positives outweigh their negatives, but if I just sit back and don't bring any positives at all then my negatives, however tiny, would accumulate? In any case, while I see the point you are making, I am a bit puzzled as to how would anyone else who is single respond to the question as to what they have to offer in a relationship?


Yes, I would say this is your main problem. From what I can gather, social interaction with a view towards dating goes like this:

First impression: physical attraction. A woman will look at you and decide whether she would date you based on your appearance. Not only is this physical features but also hygiene, how you dress, your hair, etc.

Second impression: Personality. This shines through in body language even before you've opened your mouth, but if you can actually talk to her then you have a chance to offer her a glimpse into who you are. Find your strengths and play to them. If you're funny, make her laugh. If you're a daredevil, wow her with stories of your amazing feats. If you don't have much to talk about, ask her questions, listen to her answers and respond.

Example: You ask what she does and she says she's a nurse. "Wow, that's important work, what made you get into that?" Then she can tell you all about the nurse who was nice to her when she broke her arm, or how her gran needed a lot of care and made her realise she wanted to help people.

Third impression: Longer term goals. Don't make things up to impress her unless you're not intending to follow through on a date. For instance, don't tell her you have a pilot's license if you don't because in six months time your now-girlfriend will wonder what else you lied about. It's not worth lying about. Just try to show her what she can expect when she's around you, make her look at you as a whole person and decide if that's the sort of person she wants in her life.

The second and third impressions are where unattractive people need to work harder, because they don't get that initial 'in' like hot people do. But it's also the part where they can excel at turning friends into relationships. People are more willing to be friends with unattractive people, and if you can wow them with a great personality you stand a chance of making them fall in love with you regardless of your physical limitations.

*However*, don't make friends with women in the hope that you will one day turn them into girlfriends. That's not cool. Make friends with women for the sake of making friends with them; because you want to hang out with them whether they want to date you or not. *IF* something develops from that friendship, that's great, but if it doesn't, don't ***** about how women always leave you in the friend zone. If you want to date a woman, ask her as soon as you can, accept her answer and decide whether you want to (or can be) friends with her or not.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Third impression: Longer term goals. Don't make things up to impress her unless you're not intending to follow through on a date. For instance, don't tell her you have a pilot's license if you don't because in six months time your now-girlfriend will wonder what else you lied about. It's not worth lying about. Just try to show her what she can expect when she's around you, make her look at you as a whole person and decide if that's the sort of person she wants in her life.


As someone with a healthy dose of depression this is always where I've thought the sticking point would be for me. I wouldn't want to lie and the truth is that both my short and long term goal is to try and keep going, if I make it through today I'll try again tomorrow. The best spin I could put on it without lying would be to say something like "My long term goal is to be happy, to have a life that I cherish and look forward to, I don't yet know what that would entail but my long term goal is to find out".

Do you think I would have any chance of not striking out with that response?:smile2:

What would you recommend for anyone like that? Not so much for me personally as I'm not actively looking but it could be useful for someone else who might feel badly about themselves for not having long term goals and/or ambitions (that seems to be quite a common requirement after all).

And to make up for temporarily hijacking @causalset's thread even in my situation I would be able to offer the following off the top of my head.

I'm both smart and socially capable enough to hold a decent conversation.
I've got a decent sense of humour (though that's subjective).
I'm genuinely kind and that is reflected in the way I treat people.
I'm honest.
I'm emotionally available.
I don't play mind games.
I know how to cook and clean.
I would enjoy her company but I wouldn't need it so I wouldn't be too clingy or too distant.
I would do my best to help her achieve whatever she wanted in life.
I'm in decent shape.

That's just a few, I could keep going, I'm sure if you really thought about it you could come up with a list yourself.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> As someone with a healthy dose of depression this is always where I've thought the sticking point would be for me. I wouldn't want to lie and the truth is that both my short and long term goal is to try and keep going, if I make it through today I'll try again tomorrow. The best spin I could put on it without lying would be to say something like "My long term goal is to be happy, to have a life that I cherish and look forward to, I don't yet know what that would entail but my long term goal is to find out".


For me this is the easiest part: I always had long term goal of becoming professor in physics and in fact not only I know thats my goal but I *insist* on it to the point that I would rather go back to school (which I just did) than get a job in any area other than theoretical physics.

But the problem is that usually the conversation doesn't get to the point of women asking me about the goal. Although now that I think about it they did ask and they said its impressive to which I replied "no it isn't, look at how I am far behind where I am supposed to be" and this tends to be a conversation killer.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> For me this is the easiest part: I always had long term goal of becoming professor in physics and in fact not only I know thats my goal but I *insist* on it to the point that I would rather go back to school (which I just did) than get a job in any area other than theoretical physics.
> 
> But the problem is that usually the conversation doesn't get to the point of women asking me about the goal. Although now that I think about it they did ask and they said its impressive to which I replied "no it isn't, look at how I am far behind where I am supposed to be" and this tends to be a conversation killer.


See, you've already got one for the list. You have strong ambitions and a clear long term goal.

Yes, I think "thanks" would have been a better response to receiving that complement. Trying to convince her that you are failing isn't likely to warm her to you.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> See, you've already got one for the list. You have strong ambitions and a clear long term goal.
> 
> Yes, I think "thanks" would have been a better response to receiving that complement. Trying to convince her that you are failing isn't likely to warm her to you.


That goes back to what you said about not lying. A white lie is still a lie as far as I am concerned.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> That goes back to what you said about not lying. A white lie is still a lie as far as I am concerned.


Do you not appreciate compliments? If so it isn't a lie. If you think "thanks" is too strong it would have been better to just not address it and keep the conversation moving.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

LonelyLurker said:


> Do you not appreciate compliments? If so it isn't a lie. If you think "thanks" is too strong it would have been better to just not address it and keep the conversation moving.


No it has nothing to do with this. Rather the issue is that people outside of physics might not know how the things in physics work. Like they might not realize that its normal to have 15 or 20 publications and the fact that I have only 3 is a big problem; they think having 3 is impressive since they don't have any at all. Also they often think that doing second Ph.D. is impressive whereas in actuality being a professor is a lot harder than being a student again and the reason I am doing second ph.d. is not because I am so super-smart but rather because I couldn't become a professor and it was my desperate way to stay in school.

In any case, if someone who has their facts gives me a compliment then I will say thanks. But if I suspect they don't have their facts straight then I feel compelled to supply them with facts. That is true not just with compliments but with everything else. Perhaps thats why people think I am argumentative because I "correct facts" a bit too often but I am not trying to argue I am just trying to supply information but others don't see it that way.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

LonelyLurker said:


> As someone with a healthy dose of depression this is always where I've thought the sticking point would be for me. I wouldn't want to lie and the truth is that both my short and long term goal is to try and keep going, if I make it through today I'll try again tomorrow. The best spin I could put on it without lying would be to say something like "My long term goal is to be happy, to have a life that I cherish and look forward to, I don't yet know what that would entail but my long term goal is to find out".
> 
> Do you think I would have any chance of not striking out with that response?:smile2:
> 
> What would you recommend for anyone like that? Not so much for me personally as I'm not actively looking but it could be useful for someone else who might feel badly about themselves for not having long term goals and/or ambitions (that seems to be quite a common requirement after all).


Well, fwiw, this is me on an optimistic day, as someone with zero dating experience. So maybe there are some more experienced people out there with a different opinion but I think your response sounds fine.

I honestly think it's more about the overall impression that you make. If she looks at you and thinks 'Man, after a few dates, I don't see this guy hanging around/being worth it' then she might not take the chance. Which is why it's best not to lie.

Also @causalset, saying 'thank you' is not a white lie. You'll still be a professor regardless of if you get there when you're 30 or 90. And it's about having the potential and the ambition, not whether you get there. Like I said - it's not about her being able to say 'My boyfriend is a professor'. And given what it takes to get one paper published, I'd assume having 3 is impressive, even if it's less than you would like. Most people don't even get 1, y'know.



> And to make up for temporarily hijacking @causalset's thread even in my situation I would be able to offer the following off the top of my head.
> 
> I'm both smart and socially capable enough to hold a decent conversation.
> I've got a decent sense of humour (though that's subjective).
> ...


That's a good list.  @causalset you should definitely do this.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

causalset said:


> In any case, if someone who has their facts gives me a compliment then I will say thanks. But if I suspect they don't have their facts straight then I feel compelled to supply them with facts. That is true not just with compliments but with everything else. Perhaps thats why people think I am argumentative because I "correct facts" a bit too often but I am not trying to argue I am just trying to supply information but others don't see it that way.


A compliment doesn't have to be objectively true. If someone says "The capital of Russia is Venezuela" then you can correct them. If someone pays you a compliment, just say "thanks". You could say something like "I've still got a long way to go but I appreciate the compliment", that's both true and doesn't make you sound like a downer. However, if you're not confident that you can come up with that type of thing on the spot, just say "thanks".


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Well, fwiw, this is me on an optimistic day, as someone with zero dating experience. So maybe there are some more experienced people out there with a different opinion but I think your response sounds fine.
> 
> I honestly think it's more about the overall impression that you make. If she looks at you and thinks 'Man, after a few dates, I don't see this guy hanging around/being worth it' then she might not take the chance. Which is why it's best not to lie.


Thanks for the input, I'd welcome any other opinions too as society seems to have reached consensus that without ambition you can't be a full adult, you're a lazy man child. Luckily for me I seem to be highly resistant to peer pressure and the desire to meet the expectations of others so it doesn't really hurt me, but I'm sure there are many who hide that they feel that way for this reason. Personally I would think that a lack of ambition probably denotes a lack of passion not a lack of will, if they (we) found something/someone that made us passionate then ambition would be a natural by product.



TheWelshOne said:


> That's a good list.  @causalset you should definitely do this.


Why thank you.:blush

Sometimes I feel a little out of place around here because as someone in my situation I feel that I'm supposed to hate myself, think I'm a loser etc. but I think I would be a pretty good catch actually. It just so happens that the things I do offer are generally considered less important than the things I don't, but to be fair the same is true when it comes to what appears to be on offer to me.

I've had a few people (in person) who can't seem to get their heads around the idea that I genuinely like myself as a whole person but doubt that others would really appreciate the full package, some parts, sure, but not the full package.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

LonelyLurker said:


> Personally I would think that a lack of ambition probably denotes a lack of passion not a lack of will, if they (we) found something/someone that made us passionate then ambition would be a natural by product.


I definitely think you're right about this. I struggle with a lack of ambition just because nothing really inspires me enough.



> Sometimes I feel a little out of place around here because as someone in my situation I feel that I'm supposed to hate myself, think I'm a loser etc. but I think I would be a pretty good catch actually. It just so happens that the things I do offer are generally considered less important than the things I don't, but to be fair the same is true when it comes to what appears to be on offer to me.
> 
> I've had a few people (in person) who can't seem to get their heads around the idea that I genuinely like myself as a whole person but doubt that others would really appreciate the full package, some parts, sure, but not the full package.


Well, I couldn't possibly comment since I hate myself. :lol But I know a few people here who seem to have fairly good self-esteem so you're not alone.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

LonelyLurker said:


> Personally I would think that a lack of ambition probably denotes a lack of passion not a lack of will, if they (we) found something/someone that made us passionate then ambition would be a natural by product.


That's interesting because I think I'm the other way around. I'm regularly inspired by things, but just have no motivation. Even if I start doing something I won't stick with it for long.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Well, I couldn't possibly comment since I hate myself. :lol But I know a few people here who seem to have fairly good self-esteem so you're not alone.


Would it be worth my time trying to convince you otherwise?

Join us in the good self-esteem club, you know you want to.:smile2:


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Persephone The Dread said:


> That's interesting because I think I'm the other way around. I'm regularly inspired by things, but just have no motivation. Even if I start doing something I won't stick with it for long.


Do you truly feel passionately about these temporary inspirations? Bearing in mind that passion is a powerful emotion (so I've heard:laugh.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Hey causalset, read some red pill material off the red pill subreddit. It'll blow you're mind when it comes to how relationships works. Actually don't read the red pill, its too misogynistic. But I do recommend the following from The Rational Male. It is still useful material but moderately less misogynistic from the subreddit red pill. I picked out some of the "best of" The Rational Male.

https://therationalmale.com/2011/08/25/the-desire-dynamic/- Explains why overt communication for desire doesn't work 
https://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it - Related to the above link.
https://therationalmale.com/2013/08/07/appeals-to-reason/- Again, related.Heh.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

LonelyLurker said:


> Would it be worth my time trying to convince you otherwise?
> 
> Join us in the good self-esteem club, you know you want to.:smile2:


Lol, honestly you don't know me well enough to assume there's a reason for me not to hate myself, but thanks for the offer.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Lol, honestly you don't know me well enough to assume there's a reason for me not to hate myself, but thanks for the offer.


That's true, but I bet I'd have found at least some redeeming characteristics. I know how to take a "no" though so I'll leave it at that.

If you change your mind let me know.:smile2:


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Lol, honestly you don't know me well enough to assume there's a reason for me not to hate myself, but thanks for the offer.


Well apparently it DOES mean something that they invited you to join that group. Case in point: they never invited me to join -- probably because they think I will ruin it through constant overanalyzing or whatever. So at least you are not as annoying as me, since they invited you.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Well apparently it DOES mean something that they invited you to join that group. Case in point: they never invited me to join -- probably because they think I will ruin it through constant overanalyzing or whatever. So at least you are not as annoying as me, since they invited you.


It's not a real group, man, it's just a saying.

And it was directly related to the conversation we were having. LonelyLurker said he has good self-esteem, I said I don't, he offered to help me change that. If you asked for help with your self-esteem, I'm sure people would offer support.


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

ya oh well but the world is not meant to be a fair or just place


----------

