Month: June 2014

Mark Manson’s “Six Healthy Relationship Habits”

Mark Manson is also a bit rough on the “fairy tale” conception of romance and relationships. Go read his post on healthy relationship habits and come back here for additional commentary…

Done? Wasn’t that sensible? Now for some comments:

In his research of thousands of happily married couples, some of whom who have been married for 40+ years, he found time and again that most successful couples have persistent unresolved issues, unresolved issues that they’ve sometimes been fighting about for decades. Meanwhile many of the unsuccessful couples insisted on resolving fucking everything because they believed that there should be a void of disagreement between them. Pretty soon there was a void of a relationship too.

I would say “disagreeing” rather than fighting. Constant fighting over anything is relationship-eroding. What he is getting at is that you can agree to disagree about something, discuss it from time to time, and not let negative feelings about it endanger your much more important relationship. Couples who fight over unimportant things because for one or both of them creating perfection is more important than the value of their partner as they are, warts and all, are headed for trouble. You can both be controlling perfectionists and still treasure each other’s differences so long as you *mostly* agree on the ground rules of your home and heart. Over time these differences can become another source of playful banter and perspective. Picking at differences and showing hostility and contempt toward your partner for loading the dishwasher wrong or forgetting to put the toothpaste cap on is a sign of a relationship that won’t last.

It’s important to make something more important in your relationship than merely making each other feel good all of the time. The feel good stuff happens when you get the other stuff right. The sunsets and puppies, they happen when you get the more important stuff right: values, needs and trust.

If I feel smothered and need more time alone, I need to be capable of saying that without blaming her and she needs to be capable of hearing it without blaming me, despite the unpleasant feelings it may cause. If she feels that I’m cold and unresponsive to her, she needs to be capable of saying it without blaming me and I need to be capable of hearing it without blaming her, despite the unpleasant feelings it may generate.

These conversations are paramount to maintaining a healthy relationship that meets both people’s needs. With out them, we get lost and lose track of one another.

I make this point in the book.Couple holding hands Supporting one another in the real world requires sympathetic honesty – tactful tough love, not constant ego support by always saying the thing you know will make your partner feel best. Sometimes feeling good is not the path to success for your partner or yourself — the truth about what you need and how you feel must be told, even if you have a duty to speak it tactfully and gently. Otherwise the shared worldview of the couple won’t be realistic, leading to disappointment and distrust.

Our cultural scripts for romance includes this sort of mental tyranny, where any mildly emotional or sexual thought not involving your partner amounts to high treason. Being in love is like a cult where you’re supposed to prefer drinking Kool Aid laced with cyanide to letting your thoughts wander to whether other religions may be true too.

As much as we’d like to believe that we only have eyes for our partner, biology says otherwise. Once we get past the honeymoon phase of starry eyes and oxytocin, the novelty of our partner wears off a bit. And unfortunately, human sexuality is partially wired around novelty. I get emails all the time from people in happy marriages/relationships who get blindsided by finding someone else attractive and they feel like horrible, horrible people because of it. Not only are we capable of finding multiple people attractive and interesting at the same time, but it’s a biological inevitability.

What isn’t an inevitability are our choices to act on it or not. Most of us, most of the time, choose to not act on those thoughts. And like waves, they pass through us and leave us with our partner very much the same way how they found us.

This triggers a lot of guilt in some people and a lot of irrational jealousy in others. Our cultural scripts tell us that once we’re in love, that’s supposed to be it, end of story. And if someone flirts with us and we enjoy it, or if we catch ourselves having an occasional errant sexy-time fantasy, there must be something wrong with us or our relationship.

But that’s simply not the case. In fact, it’s healthier to allow oneself to experience these feelings and then let them go.

When you suppress these feelings, you give them power over you, you let them dictate your behavior for you (suppression) rather than dictating your behavior for yourself (feeling them and yet choosing not to do anything).

People who suppress these urges are the ones who are likely to eventually succumb to them and give in and suddenly find themselves screwing the secretary in the broom closet and having no idea how they got there and come to deeply regret it about twenty-two seconds afterward. People who suppress these urges are the ones who are likely to project them onto their partner and becoming blindingly jealous, attempting to control their partner’s every thought and whim, corralling all of their partner’s attention and affection onto themselves. People who suppress these urges are the ones who are likely to wake up one day disgruntled and frustrated with no conscious understanding of why, wondering where all of the days went and remember how in love we used to be?

Looking at attractive people is enjoyable. Speaking to attractive people is enjoyable. Thinking about attractive people is enjoyable. That’s not going to change because of our Facebook relationship status. And when you dampen these impulses towards other people, you dampen them towards your partner as well. You’re killing a part of yourself and it ultimately only comes back to harm your relationship.

When I meet a beautiful woman now, I enjoy it, as any man would. But it also reminds me why out of all of the beautiful women I’ve ever met and dated, I chose to be with my girlfriend. I see in the attractive women everything my girlfriend has and most women lack. And while I appreciate the attention or even flirtation, the experience only strengthens my commitment. Attractiveness is common. But real intimacy is not.

When we commit to a person, we are not committing our thoughts, feelings or perceptions. We can’t control our own thoughts, feelings and perceptions the majority of the time, so how could we ever make that commitment?

What we control are our actions. And what we commit to that special person are our actions. Let everything else come and go, as it inevitably will.

It’s very important to recognize the power of limerence and sexual attraction to get our attention when we’re in along-term relationship. Foolish people listen to the Siren call of hormones and destroy good marriages that have a history and security to pursue a temporary obsession; this mistake can destroy lives and damage your children. Cultivate the mental detachment to enjoy and be entertained by these hormonal storms without losing your grip on reality; recognize it is no more likely to last than a weekend bender, and take care to reassure your partner that you are committed to them despite this distraction, since there’s no way you can hide such feelings from someone really close to you. Bring your partner in on this temporary insanity and ask for their forbearance. Because you are in this together. And if your partner is in the grip of Fairy Tale Thinking, you have to snap them out of it.


More on Divorce, Marriage, and Mateseeking

Marriages Happening Late, Are Good for You
Monogamy and Relationship Failure; “Love Illuminated”
“Millionaire Matchmaker”
More reasons to find a good partner: lower heart disease!
“Princeton Mom” Susan Patton: “Marry Smart” not so smart
“Blue Valentine”
“All the Taken Men are Best” – why women poach married men….
“Marriage Rate Lowest in a Century”
Making Divorce Hard to Strengthen Marriages?
Student Loan Debt: Problems in Divorce
“The Upside of ‘Marrying Down’”
The High Cost of Divorce
Separate Beds Save Marriages?
Marital Discord Linked to Depression
Marriage Contracts: Give People More Legal Options
Older Couples Avoiding Marriage For Financial Reasons
Divorced Men 8 Times as Likely to Commit Suicide as Divorced Women
Vox Charts Millennial Marriage Depression
What’s the Matter with Marriage?
Life Is Unfair! The Great Chain of Dysfunction Ends With You.
Leftover Women: The Chinese Scene
Constant Arguing Can Be Deadly…
“If a fraught relationship significantly shortens your life, are you better off alone?
“Divorce in America: Who Really Wants Out and Why”
View Marriage as a Private Contract?
“It’s up there with ‘Men Are From Mars’ and ‘The Road Less Travelled’”
Free Love, eHarmony, Matchmaking Pseudoscience
Love Songs of the Secure Attachment Type
“The New ‘I Do’”
Unrealistic Expectations: Liberal Arts Woman and Amazon Men
Mark Manson’s “Six Healthy Relationship Habits”
“The Science of Happily Ever After” – Couples Communications
Free Dating Sites: Which Have Attachment Type Screening?
Dating Pool Danger: Harder to Find Good Partners After 30
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
Perfect Soulmates or Fellow Travelers: Being Happy Depends on Perspective
No Marriage, Please: Cohabiting Taking Over
“Marriage Markets” – Marriage Beyond Our Means?
Rules for Relationships: Realism and Empathy
Limerence vs. Love
The “Fairy Tale” Myth: Both False and Destructive
When to Break Up or Divorce? The Economic View
“Why Are Great Husbands Being Abandoned?”
Divorce and Alimony: State-By-State Reform, Massachusetts Edition
“Sliding” Into Marriage, Small Weddings Associated with Poor Outcomes
Subconscious Positivity Predicts Marriage Success…
Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)

Another Study on Diet Drinks

Sugar in Processed Foods

Sugar in Processed Foods – UCSF

Some experts think artificial sweeteners trick the body’s feedback mechanisms and increase cravings for food; if so, using them would not be helpful in weight loss. But as a previous study showed, there’s little evidence of that aside from unscientific studies showing that people who drink diet drinks tend to gain weight; correlation not proving causation, more studies are needed.

A new study featured in this Reason piece by Ronald Bailey is closer to scientific in that it compares results against an otherwise similar control group which was not asked to use diet beverages, and it shows a small weight-loss effect by drinking diet beverages instead of water, presumably because the artificially-sweetened beverages were more satisfying and reduced other food consumption.

I personally enjoy a diet soda (currently favoring ginger ale) for its refreshing effect; a little carbonated sweet flavor is very satisfying. And I have very low body fat as a result of a low-carb diet.

For more on diet and weight loss:

Getting to Less Than 10% Body Fat Like the Models – Ask Me How!
Starbucks, Jamba Juice Make You Fat
Fat Doesn’t Make You Fat. Government Guidelines Did!
‘Fed Up’ Asks, Are All Calories Equal?
Fructose: The True Villain?
More on “Fed Up”, Sugar Subsidies, and Obesity
LeBron James Cut Carbs for Lean Look
Why We’re Fat: In-Depth Studies Under Way
Almonds: Superfood, Eat Them Daily for Heart Health
Fish Oil Supplements Ward Off Dementia
More on Diet Drinks: Best Studies Show They Aid Weight Loss
Vani Hari: “Food Babe” and Quack
Cleanses and Detox Diets: Quackery
Sugared Soft Drinks: Health Risk? (and What About Diet Soda?)
Gluten-Free Diets: The Nocebo Effect
Acidic Soft Drinks and Sodas: Demineralization Damages Teeth
Fish and Fish Oil for Better Brain Health
Salt: New Research Says Too Little May Be Unhealthy
Bulletproof Coffee: Coffee, Oil, and Butter for Breakfast?

Teaching Narcissists to Activate Empathy

Well-written article in the Atlantic by Olga Khazan, discussing a study which showed people with high narcissism could be persuaded to exercise their (usually less active) empathetic abilities when directed.

Only the most malignant narcissists are incapable of imagining the feelings of others; but everyday narcissists’ skill in that area is seldom used because they are always focused on what they need, ego support. When researchers asked them to put themselves in another’s place, they were able to do so. This implies consistent signals rewarding displays of empathy might help the narcissist do better at acting on the feelings of others.

Robert Morse

He believes in himself.

Love is great, but it’s actually empathy that makes the world go ‘round. Understanding other peoples’ viewpoints is so essential to human functioning that psychologists sometimes refer to empathy as “social glue, binding people together and creating harmonious relationships.”

Narcissists tend to lack this ability. Think of the charismatic co-worker who refuses to cover for a colleague who’s been in a car accident. Or the affable friend who nonetheless seems to delight in back-stabbing.

These types of individuals are what’s known as “sub-clinical” narcissists—the everyday egoists who, though they may not merit psychiatric attention, don’t make very good friends or lovers.

“If people are in a romantic relationship with a narcissist, they tend to cheat on their partners and their relationships break up sooner and end quite messily,” Erica Hepper, a psychologist at the University of Surrey in the U.K., told me. “They tend to be more deviant academically. They take credit for other peoples’ work.”

Psychologists have long thought that narcissists were largely incorrigible—that there was nothing we could do to help them be more empathetic. But for a new study in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Hepper discovered a way to measurably help narcissists feel the pain of others.

…

“I think what’s going on here is that people who are low on narcissism are already responding to people—telling them what to do it isn’t going to increase their empathy any further,” Hepper said. “But the higher on narcissism you get, the less empathy [you feel]. By instructing them to think about it, it activates this empathic response that was previously much weaker.”

And the narcissists weren’t just faking it. In a third experiment, Hepper showed that extreme narcissists had lower-than-average heart rates when listening to a recording of a woman in distress. (That is, “Their lack of empathy is more than skin-deep,” Hepper writes.) But if they were told to take the woman’s perspective, their heart rates leapt back up to a normal level.


More on Narcissists:

Malignant Narcissists

More on Attachment and Personality Types:

What Attachment Type Are You?
Type: Secure
Type: Anxious-Preoccupied
Type: Dismissive-Avoidant
Type: Fearful-Avoidant (aka Anxious-Avoidant)
Avoidant: Emotions Repressed Beneath Conscious Level
Serial Monogamy: the Fearful-Avoidant Do It Faster
Anxious-Preoccupied: Stuck on the Dismissive?
Anxious-Preoccupied / Dismissive-Avoidant Couples: the Silent Treatment
nxious-Preoccupied: Clingy and Insecure Relationship Example
Domestic Violence: Ray and Janay Rice
Malignant Narcissists
Histrionic Personality: Seductive, Dramatic, Theatrical
Life Is Unfair! The Great Chain of Dysfunction Ends With You.
Love Songs of the Secure Attachment Type
On Addiction and the Urge to Rescue
Sale! Sale! Sale! – “Bad Boyfriends” for Kindle, $2.99
Controlling Your Inner Critic: Subpersonalities
“Big Bang Theory” — Aspergers and Emotional/Social Intelligence
Porn Addiction and NoFAP
Introverts in Management

Unrealistic Expectations: Liberal Arts Woman and Amazon Men

AmazonWarrior
I noticed Dalrock linked to this post, which is quite a good example of the phenomenon of single people approaching middle age: the music has stopped, the chairs seem to be taken, and no one that’s left seems like good marriage material. The post, by Tricia Romano at the Daily Dose, is so full of stereotyping, prejudice, and hurtful snark that I think it’s worth quoting most of it….

I sat across from him and listened. He was trim, tall, bearded (as they all seem to be), a recent transplant, having only lived in Seattle for a year or so and worked at a start-up, after burning out at Amazon (as they all seem to have). He rode his bike around town; he had good taste in food and wine; and he lived across the street from where we were meeting. He was a software engineer or did something in tech (as they all did). And he was utterly unmemorable.

I don’t think he asked me a single question about myself. Our date—if you call these impromptu Internet meetings, dates—lasted an hour. It felt more like a job interview, but not the way a date is supposed to be a job interview. There was no grilling about where you were from and what your family was like and what you were looking for.

No, I spent a half hour or more listening to him talk about his job. Since I am not in the tech industry, I don’t understand any of it. It was all job speak—the type of language ladder-climbers use; it was the kind of talk that shuts vaginas down cold.

… As Amazon grows, the number of (boring) men grows too. The gender disparity is bad enough in San Francisco that one company, The Dating Ring, has resorted to flying women into San Fran from other cities.

You might think an abundance of men is a great thing, but as a wise woman once said, “The odds may be good, but the goods are odd.”

“I’ve lived in Seattle for seven years, single most of them,” Annie Pardo, a 31-year-old freelance event and communications consultant in Seattle, wrote in an email. “The only thing that has changed is the increase in men I’d never want to go out on a date with.” She added, “Can’t believe they actually strap on those new employee book bags.”

For Reifman, the number of men versus women presents a challenge for guys like him—he can’t seem to get a date or hold the attention of the women he’s courting because, presumably, he’s got so much competition. But the reality is that all he has to do is have a personality. I’m serious.

The exact same scenario has been playing out in San Francisco for the last few years. One woman, Violet, a 33-year-old who has lived in the Bay Area for eight years, with one of those in the “belly of the beast,” Palo Alto, experienced many of the same things I and other women did. They had money, but they were boring. They had a lot to say about their job, but their development as a complete human being seemed to be stunted. And they exhibited little to no interest in the other person at the table.

“There were a lot of tech men. I could talk a blue streak about them. I don’t have much positive to say. The biggest thing, the thing that bothered me the most is I felt like my intelligence was greatly devalued,” she wrote. ”I am a smart woman. I have a master’s from Berkeley in philosophy. My brain is very abstract, though, the exact opposite of so many men in tech who have very concrete/literal brains. They interpreted information as intelligence. I constantly felt like I wasn’t seen or valued by them, even though I experienced a lot of them as having a very limited view of the world.”

Carla Swiryn, a matchmatcher for Three Day Rule, a start-up that offers curated online dating services in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, said that her female clients are often hit with a double whammy: “I often hear women say they either date A-holes or nerds—or if they’re really lucky, both in one,” she said. “They feel like they’re dealing with someone who has poor social skills, not a lot of style, and isn’t that attractive, or is decently good-looking, successful, or cool, but by default knows it and acts like it, with a huge ego and selfish mind-set in tow.”

One woman, Bridget Arlene, spent three years in Seattle for graduate school, and said that she actually moved out of the city, in part because of the type of available men—most of whom had computer science or engineering degrees and worked for Google, Microsoft, or Amazon. “The type of person who is attracted to these jobs and thus to the Seattle area seems to be a socially awkward, emotionally stunted, sheltered, strangely entitled, and/or a misogynistic individual,” she wrote in an email. Arlene said that she was once contacted by a Microsoft programmer on OKCupid who required that she read Neuromancer before “he would consider taking me out on a date. He was not joking.”

In Seattle, it has been easy to hook up, but hard to find anyone really interesting or worthwhile for the long term. The majority of the guys who are moving here for companies like Amazon seem to be their late 20s or early 30s, and they are new and exploring the city. And that means they are exploring the city’s women.

…

This wasn’t what I’d signed up for. I’d moved back to Seattle, in particular to Capitol Hill, because when I’d lived here during the ’90s it was a beacon of diversity for weirdos. (I stress “weirdos”—there are few people of color in Seattle.) The weirdos were: young gay boys, old hippies of varying sexuality, straight artists and musicians, softball lesbians, punk-rock dykes who played house music, metal musicians, ravers, or people into the fetish scene. They were not straight, white guys from flyover country or California imported by a software company. They spent their time doing things other than making Jeff Bezos more money.

The problem has become pervasive enough in Seattle that when I went with a few girlfriends to Pony, one of the last true gay bars on Capitol Hill, I was shocked when I found out that the adorable pair of 25-year-old boys talking to us were heterosexual. They were there because—as one of them told us—”It was the only place on the Hill on the weekends where there are no bros.”

After I posted inquiries on Twitter, I was besieged by women with similar stories of entitlement and dullness in the men of San Francisco and Seattle.

@Iamuhura wrote: “I honestly am thankful every single day that I’m no longer single. Tech dudes are generally 7s looking for 10s. But they think they’re 11s and spew that entitlement wherever they go.”

Even men had something (nasty) to say: Wrote one guy to my request, that I “want to hear about your dating life + how the men in the tech industry have changed it”: “I think you accidentally said ‘changed,’ but what you meant was ‘ruined forever with their awfulness.’”

Why were they so awful? What was it about guys who work in tech that made them worse than lawyers or other white-collar industries?

In a way they exhibit some of the same qualities of those professions—ego, arrogance, and unlimited amounts of cash. In San Francisco, said Violet, “There were a lot of men to date with disposable income who wanted to take women out. It’s just, it was so boring,” she said. “My dating life went from dating artists and writers and going on cheap but exciting dates, to men who thought the ability to buy someone an expensive meal made them interesting.”

Because there are so many people in tech in Seattle and San Francisco, it is like the men in tech have eaten two previously diverse and interesting cities whole. The phenomenon of programming taking over as one of the top white collar occupations (according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, computer and mathematical science occupations are “projected to add 967,000 jobs in 2014,” the fastest growing in professional occupations), and the new breed of programmers that are being pumped into the tech sector—derisively dubbed “brogrammers”—is explored deeply by Nick Parish in Cool Code, Bro: Brogrammers, Geek Anxiety, and the new Tech Elite. (Full disclosure: I edited this eBook.)

With the advent of programming as a mainstream career, the nerdy, awkward programmer who liked Game of Thrones before it was a TV show has been supplanted by cocky, arrogant guys who, in another life, would go into finance. It is bad enough that I’ve include a line on my OKCupid account: “NO: Brogrammers.”

“SF, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Man Jose (I mean, San Jose) are all tech-centric, and a potential problem there is that it can attract residents who want a certain kind of lifestyle—namely, a successful but very hectic one,” said Swiryn. “It’s a magnet for a lot of Type-A personalities. And while there’s nothing wrong with that personality or lifestyle, it can create a proportionately homogenous population, making it harder to find a balance with people which is necessary in any successful relationship.”

When everyone is exactly the same, you don’t get exposed to different worlds the way you would if you met someone who was a metalworker or a sculptural artist, or an actor, or an industrial designer, or a university professor. Books they read, plays they go to (or star in), people they know, parties they go to—these things are hopefully different than, but complementary to, your own world. The hope is, you’ll learn something interesting, and vice versa. When I went to Paris, I went on OKCupid dates with several men as a way to see the city and perhaps have a romantic excursion; one worked at a movie production studio, another was a video editor; one guy worked in finance; another was an interior designer. Each one was thoroughly different than the other.

Homogeneity in and of itself isn’t “bad,” said Parish. “It’s just not exciting. Part of the fun of dating is the intermingling of worlds, and the thrill of new experiences or new environments. A basic, beige scene full of clones is counter that, and emotionally stifling.”

“I don’t see increasing sameness as leading to anything but narrow-mindedness and dysfunction,” said Violet. “Add ego to the mix and it’s dangerous.”

The new tech bros have one thing on their brains—making money. They are different than the programmers I knew from ’90s, many of whom were also artists—musicians, photographers, DJs, involved in underground and alternative subcultures. They were freaks. Coding was as much a creative activity as a means to making money. If you got into computers in the ’90s, you were already a little weirder than the rest of the world, you already thought differently. Now that computing is trendy—and economically fruitful—it’s attracting a different kind of person altogether.

“I can see exactly how the tech group in the ’90s may have been more interesting because they actually were disrupting things. They changed culture, and you can’t do that without not only a driven focus but also a wide lens,” said Violet.

Today, she said, “I went out with so many guys who thought they were a part of some big revolution, but who looked to me like any establishment dude in a suit. There was a lack of awareness that they are the establishment now. They wanted it all, to be treated like a tech revolutionary and to be fawned over like a millionaire banker. Who I was got completely lost in the mix.”

“The sad thing about guys who exhibit these brogrammer qualities is they seem to fall short of greatness in both worlds,” said Parish. “They’re not purely macho or purely geeky, they’re somewhat pretenders in both, and I would imagine that’s very obvious to most women.”

For her part, Annie Pardo sees at least one comical upside to the endless stream of dull tech men: “These dudes are easily recognizable with their PCs, backpacks, pulley ID badges, short buses.”

You can see them coming a mile away. There’s just enough time to run.

Having rounded up everyone she could on Twitter who agreed to join her grievance party, she did write an entertaining (and click-baiting) piece. But look behind the snark and you see a woman who judges based on style, clothing, and manner, and finds the worst in every man she meets. As a former programmer and resident of Palo Alto, I have to agree many programmers lack social grace and quite a few show signs of Asperger’s (or as we are now supposed to say, high-functioning autism spectrum disorder.) But many are socially graceful, and interesting, and empathetic, and interested in intellectual discussions with women. I just have a feeling that Ms. Romano gives off vibes that she may not be aware of, with disdain for men who are not musicians or artists or writers, who do not dress carefully and who may be too busy to follow all the cultural news she, as a journalist, has time to follow. And because of her signals, the single men of Seattle who she might have found more interesting steer clear.

One of the comments to her post is the best possible rebuke of her attitude:

This is the first time in a very long time that I read something and just genuinely felt hurt over someone else’s words so I’m going to share my story. Dating in Seattle has been very challenging for me. I moved up here almost two years ago freshly married to a girl I was crazy about having dated for six years. We moved because she came to a cross roads that either she had to choose a career or being with me, which we were living in a small college town and I had a stellar state job in IT. In my mind it was a no brainier, make the career sacrifice for her to work at Boeing and rebuild as it was her turn to shine. Fast forward a year, she is involved in a detrimental emotional affair that causes her to self destruct the marriage and I’m single again after 7.5 years at age 30 but just starting a stellar opportunity at Microsoft.

After taking some time to myself, I’ve entered the Seattle dating scene. Working at one of these mega tech companies means you are in a very male environment with opportunities to interact with women being far and few between thus making it not a viable source of individuals to date. Online dating was a total faus pax last time I was single, and has come a long ways to being socially acceptable now. I’ve invested in it some on OKC and Match but as a male it has been a giant time sink for me. As a 5’9″ average build intelligent decent looking guy with the divorce black mark who writes short but meaningful intro messages with some tasteful humor in my profile the response rate is staggeringly low for just trying to start a conversation. Online really removes your ability to have your personality come across no matter how well you try to sneak it in and is more of a quasi human shopping catalog. Funny enough though Tinder has been great for striking up conversations and has led to a few good dates so far.

That leaves me with the bar scene and extra activities. I see these type of tech guys you speak of who are well off, non committal and just shopping around for sex. They aren’t the majority and personally I find easy to spot. A vast majority of the girls I run into either just want a one night stand which I’m against, or make them selves unapproachable. I don’t blame them for being so standoffish, the hookup stigma of Seattle would do the same to me if I were in their shoes and treated the way I’ve seen people act towards them. I’d probably do better just visiting more darker dive bars and striking up conversations, but those places aren’t very fun in the down time. Then there are extra activities, which for me has been Underdog sports. This truly is a great way to meet people and stay active. It has been my saving grace in actually having a shot in the dating scene. I haven’t met anyone directly through the sports that I’ve dated yet, but it just starts the networking process so many of us transplants need to go through to meet quality people.

I’ve worked very hard to be at where I am in my career. I’m not a programmer but work deeply in computer operations daily. We all have taken different roads to get where we are, but yes this is a very lucrative competitive field of work that has great perks. With that some individuals have developed a mightier than thou ego, but many others are extremely humble. Many of us in this industry have to live/eat/breathe what we do which may lend to talking about our work more because it is our lives. Others have passions that include competitive gaming or other “nerdy” hobbies that they don’t dare talk to girls about. Personally I really avoid talking about my job on dates because it is so hard to explain in a way that others can understand. I usually use some vague language like “I keep the magic working for 900 machines globally” and just try to leave it at that which actually has annoyed a few people. Luckily I have the gift of gab, hold interesting conversation with just about anyone I meet and have relate-able hobbies, but I know many others who don’t but are just quality guys if someone is willing to invest a little time.

So what is the point of me giving up my life story to the internet and situation I’m in? Generally I don’t give these type of articles my time of day and I’m not going to bash it or you even if there is a small part of me that wants to because it hurt me. I saw a friend post this on his facebook and even though he fits your identification method he is a stellar guy who hasn’t had the best luck finding quality girls who give him a chance. My gut feeling is he too felt put down by what you wrote and I wanted to put a “face” to this horrible stereotype you crafted. I’m a very interesting caring individual who truly valued my partner but was dealt a shitty hand and had the carpet pulled out from under me. It is a mentally and emotionally extremely challenging process to go through and really makes you question yourself. Luckily I have amazing friends and family that kept me going in the right direction. The thought of dating comes with highs and lows of mixed emotion as you put yourself out there again that can make or break your day.

What you wrote grouped me in with the rest of the other backpack toting, wearing a pulley ID tech men who ride the short bus. Many of us are in fact transplants which further increases the diversity and life experiences we have all had. Couple that with staggering numbers such as 10,000 people at the south lake union campus of Amazon, or 40,000 at the Redmond Microsoft campus(not including Bellevue) and you have a very large group of men to date. Somehow though you managed to come up with a way to identify all of us which resonated with me, so kudos to you there, and then put us down so harshly which made me feel very small today. I know personally though that I am the exact opposite of your complaints with this demographic, but you are telling all women out there “Hey here is how you can notice this type of boring self centered guy from 10,000 feet away, keep them there” even if from that distance you can’t even judge a smidgen of who they are. That negative association that I strive so hard to never be made me feel like shit, and I’m certain it also did for others.

Personally I think your article isn’t informative at all, does a disservice to women looking for quality guys and highlights a side of you that isn’t appealing. I would much more love to have seen an article for women like you who are attracted to the wrong type of guys and how to break those habits. Anytime I encounter someone complain about anything in life being lack luster such as their personal body image, people they meet, jobs they get I wonder what have they done to change the outcome. As for yourself, I’d personally look deeply into why you keep meeting the same type of guy and how do you manipulate the outcome. It can be a wide variety of reason such as having unreasonable expectations of a first date, to needing to change your behaviors like where you spend your free time in order to meet a different type of guy. A type of guy does not include where he works and what he does for a living.

I could dive into all kinds of reasons, but the take away here is you control the outcome through personal change instead of just complaining about it. You took the latter route and expressed your lack of personal awareness in the form of grouping 10’s of thousands of men, put them down in a public setting and encouraging women out there to do the same. Luckily for me I know that the quality women out there wouldn’t make such blind assumptions and the silver lining in your article is that if someone does listen to your advice you just saved me $50 bucks on a date that I’ll never have with someone I wouldn’t have wanted… Hopefully you learn the former route and can save your sex life before it dies as that is one thing Amazon doesn’t sell.


Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples OrganizationsDeath by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations

[From Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations,  available now in Kindle and trade paperback.]

The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game. Here’s the condensed version; view the entire review here.

Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of “Death by HR”

Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat… It is time to turn the tide against this madness, and Death by HR is an important research tool… All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.

 


More reading on this topic:

Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
Modern Feminism, Social Justice Warriors, and the American Ideal of Freedom
“Why Are Great Husbands Being Abandoned?”
Evolve or Die: Survival Value of the Feminine Imperative
Feminism’s Heritage: Freedom vs. Special Protections
Red Pill Women — Female MRAs
Perfect Soulmates or Fellow Travelers: Being Happy Depends on Perspective
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
“The Science of Happily Ever After” – Couples Communications