Assumptions that turn out to be false

[OliveOyl]

This new relationship I'm getting into has been dashing certain assumptions I'd made about dating and relationships. For example:

 

- There was no chemistry at all on our 1st date. In fact in the middle of the date I started thinking "this guy is not it." But since he was gentlemanly and I didn't have any other dates lined up, I agreed to go out on the 2nd date. There was some chemistry on the 2nd date and a ton of chemistry on the 3rd. So this "if it's not there immediately" assumption for me, turned out to be false.

 

- We have started interacting a lot online in between dates. He is frankly a terrible speller. I have normally made quick and huge assumptions about people based on their spelling ability. (e.g. if they can't spell, then they're illiterate and unintelligent). But this guy college educated and intelligent. His brain is just wired totally differently and for some reason, spelling is a challenge for him. And it's turned out not to matter that much to me. False assumption #2.

 

There are other assumptions that are just being shattered in my getting to know this guy. He's very different from anyone I have ever dated but more importantly, the kind of connection we have, is totally different. So far, it's been really great. I'm glad that I didn't have a ton of guys contacting me in online dating, otherwise I might have prematurely crossed this guy off the list. And then I would have missed a gem.

 

Anyone else have old assumptions turned completely upside down in the dating process?

[Mrlonelyone]

Actually getting to know people tends to shatter assumptions. The "chemistry" thing never really made sense to me. For me how a person acts and what they do can be the biggest turn on or turn off. It takes time to know that.

 

Spelling = intelligence. What can I say some peoples intelligence is more mathematical than verbal ( or more artistic than either of those ). I'm glad you have seen that.

 

I could go on.

 

Lord knows people look at me and assume all kinds of wrong things. I try not to assume anything about anyone or anything beyond the very basics. (i.e human needs air water food and occasional bathroom usage.)

 

So many of our problems are based on people making snap judgements and assumptions based on very very little information.

[angielove]

I totally agree about the chemistry thing. I've recently started seeing this guy - the first few dates were meh but over time the chemistry has really built up. I'm so glad that it did, because he is such a good guy!

 

If there is no chemistry AND I don't like the guy's personality then I will not be seeing him again.

[Jazzari]

I agree about the spelling not equating to intelligence.

 

The other assumption I've had is based on the person's job. I really hesitated to go out with a lawyer. I tended to think of them as being career obsessed social climbers and arrogant insensitive a-holes. I took a chance and had this assumption completely shattered.

[Els]

Yes, there were lots of times when first impressions turned out to be wrong. I've never had it completely wrong with chemistry, though. Oh, I've had it occur before where there wasn't great chemistry before but it grew. But I've never encountered a case where I was totally NOT interested and it worked out.

[Enchanted Girl]

You know, I was trying to say the spelling does not equal intelligence thing in an online dating thread on here recently and everyone was ignoring me.

 

It's true. I said yes to date a guy who spelled so badly that I couldn't understand anything he was saying online. I thought it was going to be an awful date and I wasn't excited about it at all and instead, he turned out to be one of the greatest guys I ever dated and our first date was one of the best I ever had. He was intelligent and a good kisser.

 

But English was his second language. He could speak it fluently, but struggled when typing it. He wasn't stupid just because it wasn't his first language.

[Imajerk17]

OliveOyl, I like this thread!

 

A lot of women seem to worship at the alter of first date "chemistry". Truth is that it doesn't mean much. First dates are pretty contrived experiences a lot like job interviews--how well can you really get to know someone over an hour of talking anyway?

 

I feel a lot more relaxed on a second date. We're both here because we decided to be after having already met each other, and there is a confidence that comes from that.

[zengirl]

I didn't know anyone thought bad spelling = low intelligence. I think bad spelling = not too diligent with spelling (doesn't know or care enough to spell and write things properly), which would be a dealbreaker for me but just 'cause it's one of those things I really care about---not because I think most people should. We all have our little things, and, as a former English major, English teacher, and sometimes freelance writer and editor, spelling and grammar are hot-spots for me.

 

I do agree assumptions can change. And I don't think it's always a bad idea to allow chemistry to evolve --- it can, I suppose --- though it would depend on the time available. If I didn't have a good amount of fun and feel the chemistry on a 1st date with a guy, I'd be hesitant to go out with him again because my social calendar is usually plenty full and that's wasted time. So, I find slow-burn chemistry better develops if you have reasons to see a guy naturally and he fits into your social sphere, rather than through a series of dates. I think dating should just be a blast, and if it isn't, it's hard to prioritize it. That said, it doesn't mean I have to want to jump a guy right away (that's actually never happened) just see potential chemistry and have enough to have a great time.

 

I will say most people I get to know live up to my assumptions. Very few defy them, just as very few books or movies have endings that surprise me. But of course it's the people who defy our assumptions who are the most game-changing and important, generally.

[zengirl]

OliveOyl, I like this thread!

 

A lot of women seem to worship at the alter of first date "chemistry". Truth is that it doesn't mean much. First dates are pretty contrived experiences a lot like job interviews--how well can you really get to know someone over an hour of talking anyway?

 

I feel a lot more relaxed on a second date. We're both here because we decided to be after having already met each other, and there is a confidence that comes from that.

 

I think my view of strong 1st dates comes because I've had some pretty awesome first dates and generally talk easily to most people (even those who don't normally converse easily). So, I guess it really depends. I've never thought 1st dates were all that awkward, but that's because I like new people. The person is brand new! If you cannot find stuff to talk about then, when neither of you have heard any of each other's stories, when will you?

 

I've certainly had crap first dates and mediocre first dates as well, but I cannot imagine those guys would've been more interesting if given a 2nd. In fact the few times I wasn't doing anything and figured "Might as well give it another shot," it was usually a horrible experience---I dreaded the date, the date went poorly, and it just felt bad all around.

 

However, I think in situations like the OP's where she liked something about the guy (he was gentlemanly) and she had the time to devote, it's a good idea. But not if you'd dread it or feel exhausted or frustrated by it.

[fishtaco]

But people make assumptions, that's just human nature. OliveOyl's assumptions are actually not that bad, pretty basic. I mean there are assumptions about who pays on a date, the way people dress, everything.

 

I never talk about my work, because my work is boring. But it brings in a nice paycheck. I talk about my hobbies, because hobbies are interesting, one of which is music, so a lot of people I meet think I'm a starving musician. And I've noticed attractive women in mid 30's or older tend to discount me immediately because they think I'm poor and younger than they are (I look younger than my age). It is what it is.

 

This one particular lady, I was very attracted to. But she kept me at arms length and friendzoned me. Later when she found out more about me, she was surprised that 1) I have above average intelligence and I know how to articulate my thoughts, 2) I make more money than she assumed, 3) I'm older than she is, 4) I know how to dress for semi-formal occasions, and I pull it off well. She was impressed, but at that point I didn't care about her anymore, and she came off as materialistic (which is now my assumption). Lost contact with her, in fact I keep in touch more with her dad, who is a very intelligent and interesting older gentleman, than her. And I don't particularly care to re-establish our "friendship".

 

But, I do know that I am the type of guy just like OliveOyl's date. My strength comes in after the woman has gotten to know me better. So ideally I should date friends. But that's a big no-no, so I don't go there. I tend to lose to aggressive guys, because their strengths are up front. And I'll lose simply because they happen first, I happen later. I've been working to change that about myself, and managed a certain degree of progress. It's still an ongoing project. Just had another episode of losing to the aggressive guy this past weekend. I'm already recalibrating myself to be more aggressive next time I go out. But I got slammed by work and practicing for a big gig this week... so looks like I won't be doing anything dating-wise for another week.

[OliveOyl]

I didn't know anyone thought bad spelling = low intelligence. I think bad spelling = not too diligent with spelling (doesn't know or care enough to spell and write things properly), which would be a dealbreaker for me but just 'cause it's one of those things I really care about---not because I think most people should. We all have our little things, and, as a former English major, English teacher, and sometimes freelance writer and editor, spelling and grammar are hot-spots for me.

.

 

To clarify, the misspellings come when we are chatting in an online environment, where it's more difficult to run things through a spell-checker. And I used to be a technical writer, so my bias was strong. But, well... I'm just really enjoying getting to know him.

 

Must stop now, am in infatuation mode and don't want to gush.

[zengirl]

To clarify, the misspellings come when we are chatting in an online environment, where it's more difficult to run things through a spell-checker. And I used to be a technical writer, so my bias was strong. But, well... I'm just really enjoying getting to know him.

 

Must stop now, am in infatuation mode and don't want to gush.

 

Gushing is good. As is infatuation.

 

And yes, I figured that is where they are. I cannot imagine myself ever getting past that particular issue. But for me, strong writing is a HUGE attraction and always has been. A cute guy with good diction and grammar absolutely kills me. But I look past plenty of things other people think are "Musts." I think it's important to make sure that you only have as Musts things that really matter to you and not thinks you think should matter.

[OliveOyl]

However, I think in situations like the OP's where she liked something about the guy (he was gentlemanly) and she had the time to devote, it's a good idea. But not if you'd dread it or feel exhausted or frustrated by it.

 

I agree with this... I didn't want to date just to date. If I was dreading it in advance I would probably try to find a way to get out of it.

 

It's tricky... I remember in my 20s and early 30s and my social calendar was more full, there would be times I just didn't feel like going out at all (with my friends, etc. ) but once I got out, I had a good time. Sometimes I just needed to get up off my lazy ass.

[Cee]

I appreciate this thread OliveOyl.

 

As for me, I make lots of assumptions to protect myself from getting hurt. My defensive response is to decide in advance why it won't work so I am not bitterly disappointed.

 

With my current boyfriend, I am having assumption after assumption shattered. He's much younger so I assumed he wasn't LTR material. He's not only LTR material, he may turn into a life partner. Already, he has become one of the great loves of my life.

 

And whenever I hear women on Love Shack speaking down their noses at 25-year old men, I feel sorry for them. They have no idea.

[jane100]

well you could juxtaposition this thread with "red flags I have ignored" and still not be any the wiser .

 

i think there is a difference between "not feeling any chemistry" and feeling like you want to get away! i nearly always want to get away, i dunno why, is that not normal? except of course with the one who turned out to have a personality disorder

[EasyHeart]

Congrats on learning to not be too judgmental! I usually give a woman three dates before I make up my mind about her. Sometimes there are really awful first dates and neither of you want to see each other again, but most times there's a little spark or at least curiosity, in which case I figure I might as well spend a little more time with her and see what happens.

 

Bad speling wuld drive mee nutz, tho. I'm still struggling with trying to be accepting of people who use "text talk". It really annoys me, but I am trying 2 b more open-minded!!!

[Els]

I didn't know anyone thought bad spelling = low intelligence. I think bad spelling = not too diligent with spelling (doesn't know or care enough to spell and write things properly), which would be a dealbreaker for me but just 'cause it's one of those things I really care about---not because I think most people should. We all have our little things, and, as a former English major, English teacher, and sometimes freelance writer and editor, spelling and grammar are hot-spots for me.

 

I think there is a difference between those who intentionally use 'txt spk' and those who genuinely, have horrible command of the language. For instance:

 

1. Hi wanna cm 2 my hse tmr? v will b hving a party!, as opposed to

 

2. hey i am not intresting in comin but can i see u later ok?

 

(1) is someone who doesn't care to write/type Queen's English in his everyday communications, but could potentially be conventionally intelligent and might even be able to speak/write well if he chooses to (I use the disclaimer of conventional intelligence, always, because there's always gonna be someone going up and claiming that intelligence could mean all sorts of other things...). (2) is either someone who has English as a second language, OR otherwise, is deficient in conventional intelligence. I can think of no other excuse otherwise for someone who has only been exposed to ONE language all his life to write it so poorly.

[zengirl]

I think there is a difference between those who intentionally use 'txt spk' and those who genuinely, have horrible command of the language. For instance:

 

1. Hi wanna cm 2 my hse tmr? v will b hving a party!, as opposed to

 

2. hey i am not intresting in comin but can i see u later ok?

 

 

I agree that there's a difference, but I've found it's pretty immaterial to me. #1 is willfully abusive of the language, and #2 is ignorant of the language. I see the difference, but neither of those things is appealing to me.

 

I agree though that #2 does NOT have to be "stupid" since there are different kinds of intelligences, and there are also disorders like dyslexia that make spelling in particular affected where overall intelligence is not. However, it does mean that their verbal intelligence is decreased, and that's an intelligence I particularly like. Though I tend towards those who have above average verbal skills and gifted math skills, if you look at most of my former boyfriends and their various test scores (SAT, GRE, Gifted IQ test, etc).

 

Re: 2nd language learners, as you bring them up in the part I cut off

 

I did date a Korean guy for a brief time, and actually the way he wrote and spoke in English (still a bit better than #2 here and very good for a 2nd language---he also spoke Japanese almost as well as I do, so he was very smart) was a big reason I knew things would never work out between us. Someone who cannot have excellent diction, spelling, grammar, and a bit of wit in English. . . . I just cannot dig it. I do understand with 2nd language folks. My Japanese isn't terrible, but it'd rudimentary and my writing in Japanese is probably pretty atrocious. I'm sure I could never be much for diction or wit in Spanish or Japanese, which is why language barriers often exist even when people speak a common language but have different 1st languages (in my experience).

[Els]

I did date a Korean guy for a brief time, and actually the way he wrote and spoke in English (still a bit better than #2 here and very good for a 2nd language---he also spoke Japanese almost as well as I do, so he was very smart) was a big reason I knew things would never work out between us. Someone who cannot have excellent diction, spelling, grammar, and a bit of wit in English. . . . I just cannot dig it. I do understand with 2nd language folks. My Japanese isn't terrible, but it'd rudimentary and my writing in Japanese is probably pretty atrocious. I'm sure I could never be much for diction or wit in Spanish or Japanese, which is why language barriers often exist even when people speak a common language but have different 1st languages (in my experience).

 

I do agree. It's one of the very few things I'm inanely picky about as well, which sorta made things difficult in the past due to the majority of people from my homeland being amazingly horrible in their command of English. Also, the few who spoke it well did tend to be more conventionally intelligent, possibly due to the fact that they actually cared about it and/or were bright enough to grasp it despite it not being the lingua franca around there. I certainly wouldn't say, though, that all who couldn't speak/write it well were unintelligent, even in the conventional or verbal sense (as they had good command of other languages). Just didn't suit me.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Elswyth

[Mrlonelyone]

I think the only true sign of intelligence is being able to do abstract tensor calculus on a n dimensional space time manifold or perhaps using spinfoam formalism to reckon with problems in quantum cosmology. Any thing less is just like grade school.

 

 

TLDR: Good spellers think good spelling makes them smart.

[Els]

Good spelling is certainly not an infallible sign of intelligence, but I would think it is a better one than spouting strings of complicated-sounding technical jargon of a random field of expertise.

[sanskrit]

If the person is a native speaker, and not dyslexic or subject to some other learning disability, bad -basic- spelling correlates with below average intelligence IME. Ruling folks like this out for dating, though, rules out ~40-50% of the population, and would take a stable poor speller who is interesting and pleasant to be around over a spelling bee champ of a personality disorder any day.

[zengirl]

Good spelling is certainly not an infallible sign of intelligence, but I would think it is a better one than spouting strings of complicated-sounding technical jargon of a random field of expertise.

 

I agree with this. Simple tasks actually tend to show raw intelligence better than anything that requires a lot of study for simple reasons: Being well-studied has little to do with raw intelligence. That's why you'll never find obscure fields on an IQ test.

 

Intelligence is about the ability and aptitude to learn something, not having actually learned it. However, things like spelling or basic calculation would be nearly impossible for a person with high, well-rounded intelligence (meaning high intelligence across the board) to miss out on learning UNLESS it was a second language or they had disorders, like dyslexia, or other exceptions.

 

This is not to say everyone who can spell nicely and balance a checkbook is brilliant or gifted, but most people with high IQs don't struggle with basic tasks like that (MOST being the key word there). No one is going to be so gifted they become experts at everything, mainly because there isn't time to do so in life and live your life well at the same time.

[OliveOyl]

I think there is a difference between those who intentionally use 'txt spk' and those who genuinely, have horrible command of the language. For instance:

 

1. Hi wanna cm 2 my hse tmr? v will b hving a party!, as opposed to

 

2. hey i am not intresting in comin but can i see u later ok?

 

(1) is someone who doesn't care to write/type Queen's English in his everyday communications, but could potentially be conventionally intelligent and might even be able to speak/write well if he chooses to (I use the disclaimer of conventional intelligence, always, because there's always gonna be someone going up and claiming that intelligence could mean all sorts of other things...). (2) is either someone who has English as a second language, OR otherwise, is deficient in conventional intelligence. I can think of no other excuse otherwise for someone who has only been exposed to ONE language all his life to write it so poorly.

 

The guy I'm seeing, his writing looks like neither 1 nor 2 above. It's not lazy text-speak in his case, and capitalization and punctuation is good. His online profile was actually quite well written (obviously run through a spell checker). I actually think it might be a very mild case of dyslexia in his case, as he says he sometimes looks at a word that is spelled correctly, but it still looks wrong.

 

At this point it doesn't bother me at all, he's very easy to talk with and we haven't run out of things to talk about yet.

 

In another post on this board, I said that the things I used to look for in men, I realized are not necessarily the things that would make me happy. For example, my stbx is very intelligent, has an advanced degree in mathematics, and is what I call a "walking Wiki" - he retains facts extremely easily. However, our relationship became icy cold. I don't care how smart a guy is if there is no emotional warmth.

[OliveOyl]

I think the only true sign of intelligence is being able to do abstract tensor calculus on a n dimensional space time manifold or perhaps using spinfoam formalism to reckon with problems in quantum cosmology. Any thing less is just like grade school.

 

Rawwwwrrr!!!!!!!