It isn't easy to try to shoehorn my old self's attitudes and priorities into modern dating scenarios. But taking me as I am now (with a younger frame, of course)--no way would "woke" be on my list, no matter how attractive the lady. (Attractiveness and intelligence seem to correlate, so there are, despite an overall shortage of women in the field, a number of attractive young women around.)
"Woke" comes with a conviction about the most important things in life sweeping enough to constitute a religion. Many religions don't mix well.
What I liked about the article was not the specifics about any filter, but the good sense about how it's more important to connect to people than cross them off of lists or minimize the danger of any of 1,000 potential flaws. It was good advice, too, to think about showing a companion a good time rather than obsess about political or social dilemmas. More warmth, less power struggle. More curiosity, less dogma.
I perhaps did not distinguish completely between being friendly (I try to be that with everyone as far as it depends on me) and looking for a mate. After a lifetime's experience and observation I have a much better notion of who would make a good lifetime partner, and it isn't just the "woke" who don't make the list. (I'd want to know how she treats promises, how much frustration she can handle, how she deals with children, and so on. Curiously enough, classical dating doesn't seem like the best way to learn these things.)
People can change--I did--but would I want to take the risk?
True enough, but meeting a prospective mate for the first time is just a date, finding out if you can get along well enough to want to spend a little time getting to know each other. As for finding out if someone is a suitable mate, well, that's going to take more than a series of dinners and movies. Somehow the couple will have to see each other under significant fire.
There are a lot of people these days, to judge from the very odd popular literature on the subject, who are super-screening prospective partners so thoroughly that they are cutting off nearly all possible contact: overconstraining the problem.
Personally I never dated much. There are other ways to get to know a group of people well enough to figure out whether a romantic spark might work. Church and local dances used to be a useful social habit. University is good. At some point it becomes clear that one or both of the couple should suggest pairing off more privately to get to know each other a little better. By that time I'd hope they both have some idea what kind of person they're dealing with, without making anyone post a form online.
I agree about the alternative venues. Volunteer activities help too.
Relying on social media tightly constrains what is visible: images and "slogans/memes" are over-weighted. Maybe that is what drives part of the polarization--you define the other person in terms of a few aspects.
FWIW, I was on the end of about a 3 mile hike around Oak Park when the snow got to be excessive and I stepped into an ice cream shop for something to warm me up (i.e. calories). So did a young woman who was too late for an appointment downtown. We stopped talking 3 hours later. We had something in common: we were both crazy enough to eat ice cream in a lake-effect snowstorm.
Tex..."There are a lot of people these days, to judge from the very odd popular literature on the subject, who are super-screening prospective partners so thoroughly that they are cutting off nearly all possible contact: overconstraining the problem."
WSJ had a piece, years ago, about companies shooting themselves in the foot by creating ridiculously excessive list of "must" requirements for jobs. I wrote about this phenomenon and its extension to dating & mating: The Five-Pound Butterfly Revisited
I honestly am surprised that Grim didn't draw the obvious analogy between this article and Aristotle's views on virtue. In all things, moderation is the key. In effect, the author is pointing out that "wokeness" (and also whatever term one would use for the "red pill" community) is a vice precisely when it is followed beyond moderation. Those who adhere to their philosophy most strictly get stuck in a (thoroughly predictable) cycle of resenting the opposite sex, which leads to fewer dates, which leads to more resentment, etc. And the ones who break that cycle are the ones who moderate their views.
This is both blindingly obvious when put in words, and at the same time the ones who need this advice the most are the least likely to follow it. Some of us are lucky. We paired off early enough that our views never needed to change. But for those finding themselves stuck in a shrinking market, the best advice seems to be "be flexible". And for those at the extremes, flexibility is not an option.
10 comments:
Forwarded to my younger group who knows more about these things.
I haven’t dated anyone since 1999, so I don’t know what I don’t know about how it is done now. Good luck to the kids who have to navigate it, though.
I scrolled back through a number of his earlier posts. They're all worth reading, too.
It isn't easy to try to shoehorn my old self's attitudes and priorities into modern dating scenarios. But taking me as I am now (with a younger frame, of course)--no way would "woke" be on my list, no matter how attractive the lady. (Attractiveness and intelligence seem to correlate, so there are, despite an overall shortage of women in the field, a number of attractive young women around.)
"Woke" comes with a conviction about the most important things in life sweeping enough to constitute a religion. Many religions don't mix well.
What I liked about the article was not the specifics about any filter, but the good sense about how it's more important to connect to people than cross them off of lists or minimize the danger of any of 1,000 potential flaws. It was good advice, too, to think about showing a companion a good time rather than obsess about political or social dilemmas. More warmth, less power struggle. More curiosity, less dogma.
I perhaps did not distinguish completely between being friendly (I try to be that with everyone as far as it depends on me) and looking for a mate. After a lifetime's experience and observation I have a much better notion of who would make a good lifetime partner, and it isn't just the "woke" who don't make the list. (I'd want to know how she treats promises, how much frustration she can handle, how she deals with children, and so on. Curiously enough, classical dating doesn't seem like the best way to learn these things.)
People can change--I did--but would I want to take the risk?
True enough, but meeting a prospective mate for the first time is just a date, finding out if you can get along well enough to want to spend a little time getting to know each other. As for finding out if someone is a suitable mate, well, that's going to take more than a series of dinners and movies. Somehow the couple will have to see each other under significant fire.
There are a lot of people these days, to judge from the very odd popular literature on the subject, who are super-screening prospective partners so thoroughly that they are cutting off nearly all possible contact: overconstraining the problem.
Personally I never dated much. There are other ways to get to know a group of people well enough to figure out whether a romantic spark might work. Church and local dances used to be a useful social habit. University is good. At some point it becomes clear that one or both of the couple should suggest pairing off more privately to get to know each other a little better. By that time I'd hope they both have some idea what kind of person they're dealing with, without making anyone post a form online.
I agree about the alternative venues. Volunteer activities help too.
Relying on social media tightly constrains what is visible: images and "slogans/memes" are over-weighted. Maybe that is what drives part of the polarization--you define the other person in terms of a few aspects.
FWIW, I was on the end of about a 3 mile hike around Oak Park when the snow got to be excessive and I stepped into an ice cream shop for something to warm me up (i.e. calories). So did a young woman who was too late for an appointment downtown. We stopped talking 3 hours later. We had something in common: we were both crazy enough to eat ice cream in a lake-effect snowstorm.
Tex..."There are a lot of people these days, to judge from the very odd popular literature on the subject, who are super-screening prospective partners so thoroughly that they are cutting off nearly all possible contact: overconstraining the problem."
WSJ had a piece, years ago, about companies shooting themselves in the foot by creating ridiculously excessive list of "must" requirements for jobs. I wrote about this phenomenon and its extension to dating & mating: The Five-Pound Butterfly Revisited
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/12370.html
I honestly am surprised that Grim didn't draw the obvious analogy between this article and Aristotle's views on virtue. In all things, moderation is the key. In effect, the author is pointing out that "wokeness" (and also whatever term one would use for the "red pill" community) is a vice precisely when it is followed beyond moderation. Those who adhere to their philosophy most strictly get stuck in a (thoroughly predictable) cycle of resenting the opposite sex, which leads to fewer dates, which leads to more resentment, etc. And the ones who break that cycle are the ones who moderate their views.
This is both blindingly obvious when put in words, and at the same time the ones who need this advice the most are the least likely to follow it. Some of us are lucky. We paired off early enough that our views never needed to change. But for those finding themselves stuck in a shrinking market, the best advice seems to be "be flexible". And for those at the extremes, flexibility is not an option.
Post a Comment