How Much of Love Is Just Luck?

[verhrzn]

Hrm. A man who was very aggressive would find himself in some trouble socially as well, methinks, most likely a broken nose or two and some jail time. Yes, it's still more socially acceptable for men to be 'aggressive'. That's absolutely right, and you're absolutely right that it's unfair. But it's what society is. A girl who wears dresses and owns a collection of 'pretty stuff' is not going to find that many of her potential mates mind that, but a man who does so will certainly find that many of HIS potential mates mind that. Genders are coming close to equal, but people still do have different expectations in general.

 

I'm not that aggressive! Heck, I wouldn't even say I'm aggressive in general... just argumentative. Which I don't see as the same thing. What am I supposed to do, not express my opinion at all? Sit demurely in the corner while boys tell me what I think, how I should be, and what I am or am not good at??

 

 

Not exactly, no. I don't pretend to be feminine, nor am I 'girly' in the way many girls are. I do try to learn to temper my 'RAAWGGRR' behaviour with maturity, restraint, and finesse, though. FTR, I think my bf tries too, himself. There are ways to 'win' that don't involve grisly, hardball competition, especially if it causes fractures with your relationship with potential crushes/partners. When I refuse to compromise and focus only on competing against the bf, I may win the battle, but when I channel my competitiveness in other aspects, we both win the war.

 

And how exactly do you channel your competitiveness "into other aspects"?

 

I say again that I'm not even that competitive. Guys GET competitiveness with me. It's like, they hear I'm in X or Y and they just have to prove they're better than me. Are you saying I should just go "Yep, you're totally better, I am a weak female who could never be as good as you or know as much!"

 

 

For instance, give the men your friends are introducing to you, one date. You haven't even met them, you've just heard of them. At least meet them before you decide.

 

Why?? I don't understand this mindset... if a friend set you up on a blind date with a guy who had a major deal breaker, would you go? If you wouldn't, why should I?? Just to waste my time?

 

Also, was that the only issue you had with that previous bf? I thought you'd said that they had 'all dumped you for hotter girls'.

 

The ex-bf I'm referring to is the one that didn't. I've tried to specify that every bf BUT one left me for a hotter girl.

 

If you'd consider my ex-friend to also be an ex-bf (since apparently he considered us dating exclusively enough that I "cheated" on him), I guess my exes now fall into two categories: guys who broke up with me for hotter girls, and guys who hate my freaking guts.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Luck / destiny / alignment of planets / or however you would prefer to label "things outside of our control" definitely play a big part in winding up in love, IMO. But just a part.

 

Regarding the belabored concept of "It'll Happen When You Least Expect It," my opinion is this:

 

A person who is anxious or desperate, whether they project it or not, about finding a partner, is probably in exactly the wrong emotional and even spiritual condition to be open to love, and to be able to recognize something worth exploring when it comes along; also, to be able to give much.

 

A person who is passionately going about their life is usually attractive to other people. Often they are in a position to meet other people who might be compatible with them, as well, as a bonus.

 

That's what I believe, but I still think that a person who wants to be in a relationship also needs to keep themselves in the dating world, unless they are completely stuck in a mindset that is counterproductive to being able to enjoy that. In that case, I think a break would be a wise move, and a shift of focus.

 

In your case, V, a shift of focus would include somehow learning how NOT to constantly enumerate all the reasons you will never find love. As you know, I really believe this thought pattern of yours is probably your greatest hinderance.

[AD1980]

Finding the right person is luck but you have to put yourself out there in the dating world to give yourself as many opportunities to find that luck or break and meet the right person..

 

 

I kind of have the same problem as you in that i shoot myself in the foot and get in my own way..I dont even approach women figuring its a waste of time thinking why would she want to go out with me..

 

I figure if i havent attracted women the first 31 years of my life why in god's name would that change all of a sudden? i just am not attractive to women..

 

Its a hotrible mindset to have but as you know its not easily breakble..i wish i could just snap my fingers and become mroe agressive and confident with women and you vice versa with Men but its an extremely hard thing to change..

[verhrzn]

That's what I believe, but I still think that a person who wants to be in a relationship also needs to keep themselves in the dating world, unless they are completely stuck in a mindset that is counterproductive to being able to enjoy that. In that case, I think a break would be a wise move, and a shift of focus.

 

In your case, V, a shift of focus would include somehow learning how NOT to constantly enumerate all the reasons you will never find love. As you know, I really believe this thought pattern of yours is probably your greatest hinderance.

 

But isn't enumerating the reasons I'll never find love, part of the whole "focus shift"? By telling myself that I'm forever single, and being comfortable with being alone forever, isn't that exactly what I'm being told to do with the whole "don't focus on dating"? I'm confused why I'm not supposed to do that, since I shouldn't be coming across as desperate and what not.

[Mme. Chaucer]

But isn't enumerating the reasons I'll never find love, part of the whole "focus shift"? By telling myself that I'm forever single, and being comfortable with being alone forever, isn't that exactly what I'm being told to do with the whole "don't focus on dating"? I'm confused why I'm not supposed to do that, since I shouldn't be coming across as desperate and what not.

 

No. What you would need to do (if you were going to follow my instructions )

would be to learn how to bail on all of that crap and to fill your mind with things that help you have a more joyous life.

[verhrzn]

No. What you would need to do (if you were going to follow my instructions )

would be to learn how to bail on all of that crap and to fill your mind with things that help you have a more joyous life.

 

... Isn't that the exact same thing? Sorry to be dense, but I really don't follow. I mean, me reminding myself why I will be forever single will lead to me filling my life with stuff, so I won't mind being single. If I thought I had a chance at a relationship, why would I run around distracting myself and not working towards finding love?

[Teknoe]

But isn't enumerating the reasons I'll never find love, part of the whole "focus shift"? By telling myself that I'm forever single, and being comfortable with being alone forever, isn't that exactly what I'm being told to do with the whole "don't focus on dating"? I'm confused why I'm not supposed to do that, since I shouldn't be coming across as desperate and what not.

 

There's a tender balance!

 

While you don't want to be 110% focused on dating (moderation is good after all), you also don't want to go to the other extreme of believing you'll be forever single and comfortable being alone forever.

 

Like I said earlier, which I did not see you address, I have a feeling you've gotten FAR TOO comfortable being single, and this latest post only confirms it. I'm in a similar boat where I desire a partner BUT I've also grown TOO COMFORTABLE with the freedom that comes with being single.

 

As a result, consciously or subconsciously, I don't always make the best choices and there's probably some self-sabotage on my part that helps perpetuate my singleness. For example, being single I can get lazy in a few departments. I don't always dress up when I go out, I eat more fast food than I should etc. These aren't the best choices to put me in a good position to attract. But since I'm so comfortable being single, part of me doesn't care.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Basically, we're our own worst enemies. No one can hurt us like ourselves. And no one can stop us from becoming who we were destined to be quite like... ourselves. It's not luck. It's us and the everyday choices we make.

 

Let me know if you need me to elaborate, or if this makes sense.

[zengirl]

Yep, this is one of the ways I 'give in', or rather, try to, in my R. It may sound bad to some,

 

To be clear, I don't really 'give in' to Hubby that much. Rather I simply refuse to set up a scenario where one of us will NEED to 'give in' in such a way. There is no right/wrong in arguments with Hubby, and I set up that scenario when we first started dating, as I have with my last few arguments. Sometimes there is correct/incorrect information, and sometimes there is a part where someone slighted the other and needs to apologize (it's no use if that's ever requested by the other party, though, so we don't do the whole, "You need to apologize!" thing), but no one is ever "wrong" or "worse" or "right" or "better." There is no blame or competition allowed in our R. Period. We agree on that. Granted, it started subtly --- by doing the proper things to avoid fights, etc --- but when you get to a marriage stage, it's actually a 'stated' thing. At least for us.

 

The subtle ways to start it are just to literally not worry about blame or competition yourself --- to not need to be better or stronger or smarter or more right than your partner. If you always quell those feelings when they arise and realize that you and your partner are only cooperating, then almost no one will compete with you in that kind of partnership. If they still do, then they are not R material for sure.

 

However, I think many people do bring a lot of ego to things, and I see that in V's comments (which I'll address). If YOU aren't approaching anything with ego, then there's literally nothing to compete with.

 

I still have no idea what I could have done differently in that situation. The guy argued with me, I was just trying to have a conversation and he kept correcting and slighting me.

 

We went over the Zelda Keychain thing and what you could've done. You could've not gone on the defensive when he offered one correction (nerds are constant correctors, and his correction was right after all) and not worried about whether you were positioning yourself as a proper expert on the subject or not. You approached with ego about the situation. You had ego when you felt slighted by his correction. And then you prolonged it to where it became an argument. One correction does not an argument make, if the other person shrugs it off.

 

I mean... are you saying that when my ex-bf told me that my writing was pedestrian and that he was way better at technology, I should have just said," Yep, you're totally right, you are way better than me."

 

Well, not really. If anyone you consider a partner says something you worked hard on was 'pedestrian,' then you probably should drop them. But you shouldn't try to prove them wrong - no use in that. However, even if someone you love finds your writing to be mediocre, they probably won't use pejorative terms, whether they write better or not.

 

What I suggest is not saying, "Yes, you're better than me" but saying (and really meaning), "I don't care about competing with you." Thing is, you CARE when someone thinks they're better at something than you. If my Hubby thinks he's better than me at something, I don't give two figs, unless he were really bad at it and going to get us both into trouble or something (and he's not like that). He thinks he's really better than me at driving, and I certainly don't agree because he speeds and so forth, but who cares? It means I don't have to drive as much! I consider that a win.

 

Or when a guy in a bar makes a crack about how he's totally better at video games/martial arts, I should just agree with him even when he's wrong?? That seems like a recipe for low self-esteem and boundary-crossing.

 

Again, the proper response is simply not caring. If the crack is rude, then don't talk to the guy anymore. If it isn't, then continue on. That's up to you. But the absolute wrong path is an argument. Pretty much always, but especially with strangers. I'm not saying I never argue with strangers -- I do --- but it's always pointless.

 

I'm not a competitive person by nature... it's part of why I hate sports. When someone "competes" with me, I easily feel threatened and put down, and I go into fight mode. I really don't LIKE myself in competitive situations, which is why it is so very necessary to have a guy who is not competitive.

 

Right, this is because you often lead with your ego, which is fairly fragile. You don't do it the way arrogant people do, but you don't dip into a deeper, more secure state of being. I get that totally, as I was very egoistic when younger. When I became more secure, I became less defensive and aggressive. Defensive is just one type of aggressive after all. You seem to think only offensive plays are aggressive, but I disagree.

 

I'm still confused why people think I'm overly aggressive. Pardon the "feminist rant," but I think it really does come down to gender: if I was male, no one would blink an eye, but because I'm female, I'm "overly aggressive" just because I'm not demure and passive. That really gets under my skin, that I have to socially manipulate situations in order just to have an opinion and not be seen as "aggressive."

 

Not really. I'd consider a man who acts the way you do about competition overly aggressive too and they generally do poorly. Many single alpha nerds for that reason. SOMEONE has to be the soft one in a R. You can certainly find a man who will, but you don't seem attracted to that type -- they are typically easy going and not as nerdy.

 

As to assertive v. aggressive, it has nothing to do with feminine. It has to do with being comfortable with who you are and what you do to the point where you don't feel the need to prove yourself AT ALL. You overreact A LOT, both in your stories and on this board, and become aggressive because you cannot yet assert yourself comfortably. That's okay. Most young women go through that phase. Push through it and get to a place where you are not acting from ego, is my best advice.

 

As to men v. women: Yes, men can do a bit more when being aggressive or acting from ego than women, just as women can manipulate more effectively than men. It's how we're socialized. However, assertive people of both genders do best IMO.

 

I'm not that aggressive! Heck, I wouldn't even say I'm aggressive in general... just argumentative. Which I don't see as the same thing.

 

I see it as the same thing, and that's how I'm using the word. I'm not saying you're sexually aggressive or anything. As to what you're supposed to do: Not care who's better at stuff! Seriously. What does it matter?

 

Especially if you're partners! Hubby and I play cooperative games all the time (board games) and almost all of them have a 1st Citizen type "winner" aspect you can score, but we never do it. Why? Because who cares if you were all going for the same goal? Who cares who killed more monsters or was better strategically? Some people who play those games do, and when we play with those people, we HATE it and rarely invite them over to play again. Just an example. They typically also make the game much harder to win!

 

I say again that I'm not even that competitive. Guys GET competitiveness with me.

 

They get competitive with you because they sense you care about such things. If you let that stuff stop bothering you, those reactions would stop. Mentality changes everything --- it's just like I tell SD that girls can read his shallowness, men can read your insecurity and competitiveness (the two traits go hand-in-hand) without even knowing they can!

[Els]

And how exactly do you channel your competitiveness "into other aspects"?

 

I say again that I'm not even that competitive. Guys GET competitiveness with me. It's like, they hear I'm in X or Y and they just have to prove they're better than me. Are you saying I should just go "Yep, you're totally better, I am a weak female who could never be as good as you or know as much!"

 

Honestly, I don't even know how to explain this. All I'm going to say is, the sort of guys you like do this to each other all the time. If they're mature, they'll do it in a good-natured way, but it is present all the same. Whether you allow this dynamic into your relationships is, to an extent, up to you. If you do, how you handle it is up to you. It isn't necessarily about your gender. They treat their guy friends the same way and if you want to respond like how their guy friends respond, that's on you.

 

That being said, I do find this 'I have to be better than you' part of geek culture annoying, sometimes, so I get what you mean. What I mean is, the full-on hardball response isn't always the best when it comes to Rs. Of course, you could wait for the guy to be the mature one who decides, "I'm not going to let this affect our relationship", or "I'll try to curtail that instinct when it comes to you", or "I'll give in and let you have your fun in this aspect". But you could also be the one to try and stop this cycle. Laughing it off, raising your eyebrow and changing the subject, making light of the matter. There are many ways to do it without 'being demure and taking it'. Plenty of older, more mature men do it to their younger counterparts when they just don't feel like picking a fight.

 

Personally, the reason I don't mind giving in in this aspect is because the bf gives in to me in so many others. So I view it as a give-and-take thing. If this aspect matters that much to you, by all means stick by your choices. We're just offering you another option.

 

Why?? I don't understand this mindset... if a friend set you up on a blind date with a guy who had a major deal breaker, would you go? If you wouldn't, why should I?? Just to waste my time?

 

To get you out of the mentality that there 'simply aren't any single guys out there'. And to know that you tried. In this case, your 'deal breaker' is simply that he's into sports, but plenty of geeks are into one or two sports as well. Even zengirl's H is. You really don't know a person until you meet them. If your time is that important that you would not give 30 minutes for that chance, then perhaps you don't want an R that much?

 

 

The ex-bf I'm referring to is the one that didn't. I've tried to specify that every bf BUT one left me for a hotter girl.

 

So, uh, competitiveness lead to the demise of this R, then?

[Els]

What I suggest is not saying, "Yes, you're better than me" but saying (and really meaning), "I don't care about competing with you." Thing is, you CARE when someone thinks they're better at something than you. If my Hubby thinks he's better than me at something, I don't give two figs, unless he were really bad at it and going to get us both into trouble or something (and he's not like that). He thinks he's really better than me at driving, and I certainly don't agree because he speeds and so forth, but who cares? It means I don't have to drive as much! I consider that a win.

 

Right, this is what I meant by 'giving in'. To me, this IS 'giving in', simply because it takes effort to be the one to break the cycle by enforcing a non-competitive state, if both people naturally have huge egos . Absolutely correct that one's partner also needs to cooperate, of course (and if it is a stranger and they don't cooperate, they can and should be ignored), but you don't know this until you make an effort first.

[verhrzn]

That being said, I do find this 'I have to be better than you' part of geek culture annoying, sometimes, so I get what you mean. What I mean is, the full-on hardball response isn't always the best when it comes to Rs. Of course, you could wait for the guy to be the mature one who decides, "I'm not going to let this affect our relationship", or "I'll try to curtail that instinct when it comes to you", or "I'll give in and let you have your fun in this aspect". But you could also be the one to try and stop this cycle. Laughing it off, raising your eyebrow and changing the subject, making light of the matter. There are many ways to do it without 'being demure and taking it'. Plenty of older, more mature men do it to their younger counterparts when they just don't feel like picking a fight.

 

That still sort of sounds like "Shut up and take it." Like, let them correct me, let them be better than me (even when they're not), let them lord over me.

 

To get you out of the mentality that there 'simply aren't any single guys out there'. And to know that you tried. In this case, your 'deal breaker' is simply that he's into sports, but plenty of geeks are into one or two sports as well. Even zengirl's H is. You really don't know a person until you meet them. If your time is that important that you would not give 30 minutes for that chance, then perhaps you don't want an R that much?

 

No, no, my deal breaker is that he isn't attracted to me. I mean, I really hate the sports thing (and sporty guys in general), but the big thing was that he didn't know what I looked like. If I'd meet him on a dating site where he had actually seen my picture and approached me, then I'd be more willing to let the sports thing slide and try it out. But the lack of physical attraction is what really killed the deal for me. (It is a far safer bet to make that if a guy doesn't know what I look like, he's not gonna be into me.)

 

So, uh, competitiveness lead to the demise of this R, then?

 

No, sorta yes? By the end, the whole thing was extremely convoluted, so it's hard to say. It didn't help we spend nearly 2 years long distance (as in, Japan to the Midwest long distance.) What really killed it, for me, was that he absolutely stopped putting in effort. I had to chase him, I had to call him, I had to message him. He would simultaneously accuse me of playing games (manipulating him to chase me) AND being too needy when I contacted him too much. One day he'd hate me, and the next day he'd see me as the mother of his children. One day he'd say he'd follow me anywhere, and the next I was "destroying his freedom." We went back and forth for nearly a year before he finally just stopped talking to me.

 

So, I suppose you could kinda say we were competing? Competing to see who would become the chaser, and who was the chased. But that relationship is a long-winded, crazy mess, so hard to say.

 

Like I said earlier, which I did not see you address, I have a feeling you've gotten FAR TOO comfortable being single, and this latest post only confirms it. I'm in a similar boat where I desire a partner BUT I've also grown TOO COMFORTABLE with the freedom that comes with being single

 

... No. Thanks for the post, but I really don't think that is it at all. I actually hate the single freedom. I am far more productive (socially, intellectually, physically) when I am dating someone. I hate being single with a passion; I actually feel kind of suffocated by the "freedom."

 

The subtle ways to start it are just to literally not worry about blame or competition yourself --- to not need to be better or stronger or smarter or more right than your partner. If you always quell those feelings when they arise and realize that you and your partner are only cooperating, then almost no one will compete with you in that kind of partnership. If they still do, then they are not R material for sure.

 

If I'm not smart/strong/better/right, then what the heck am I? What am I made of? What do you base your identity off of? You mentioned before that I base my identity off hobbies and now, apparently, ego... well if you don't base your identity off of that, what exactly is left?

 

If I have no defining qualities (because I have no ego), and I don't base my identity off of hobbies (like writing or nerddom of whatever), then... I'm just a big insipid blob.

 

But I think this is also where you and I usually clash, since being empty of ego is such a Buddhist concept, and, well, I got some philosophical issues with Buddhism (as demonstrated by how much I hated "The Zen of Dating.")

 

They get competitive with you because they sense you care about such things. If you let that stuff stop bothering you, those reactions would stop. Mentality changes everything --- it's just like I tell SD that girls can read his shallowness, men can read your insecurity and competitiveness (the two traits go hand-in-hand) without even knowing they can!

 

So they see something bothers me, and thus automatically go for the throat?? Gee, that makes dating sound like just a ton of fun. I guess the world really is filled with a**holes.

[d'Arthez]

It is a far safer bet to make that if a guy doesn't know what I look like, he's not gonna be into me.

That is not true at all. Not all men judge you on your resemblance to Kate Moss. They would if you had no personality to speak of and were interested in someone with Barbie-looks, but let's be honest here: you do have a personality to speak of. You actually have a lot of interesting things to say, and to fair number of men, a lot of good interests.

 

This guy may not have been into you. Who knows. You did not reject him, you rejected yourself for him. That is not a semantic difference.

[Els]

That still sort of sounds like "Shut up and take it." Like, let them correct me, let them be better than me (even when they're not), let them lord over me.

 

That's where I think you need to resolve some things. Approaching conflict with this mindset is unlikely to be healthy, and I'm not just talking about romantic relationships. When you have any sort of disagreement with anyone, do you genuinely believe that the person who stops the fight 'loses'?

 

If everything that zengirl and I have said sounds to you like, 'Shut up and take it', then I have nothing else for you. I really don't know how else to put it, because you're taking everything in the context of 'winning' and 'losing', but unfortunately that is not usually what it takes to genuinely 'win' in life.

 

No, no, my deal breaker is that he isn't attracted to me. I mean, I really hate the sports thing (and sporty guys in general), but the big thing was that he didn't know what I looked like. If I'd meet him on a dating site where he had actually seen my picture and approached me, then I'd be more willing to let the sports thing slide and try it out. But the lack of physical attraction is what really killed the deal for me. (It is a far safer bet to make that if a guy doesn't know what I look like, he's not gonna be into me.)

 

Those are only assumptions. You don't even know that he isn't interested in you. Sure, some will not be, but if you approach ALL men with that idea, what do you expect will happen?

 

Again, I've mentioned what I thought you have yet to work on, because you asked me to. You have reasons for why you don't want to/can't. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that you have done everything possible.

 

 

No, sorta yes? By the end, the whole thing was extremely convoluted, so it's hard to say. It didn't help we spend nearly 2 years long distance (as in, Japan to the Midwest long distance.) What really killed it, for me, was that he absolutely stopped putting in effort. I had to chase him, I had to call him, I had to message him. He would simultaneously accuse me of playing games (manipulating him to chase me) AND being too needy when I contacted him too much. One day he'd hate me, and the next day he'd see me as the mother of his children. One day he'd say he'd follow me anywhere, and the next I was "destroying his freedom." We went back and forth for nearly a year before he finally just stopped talking to me.

 

Very good reason to walk away, IMO.

 

 

If I'm not smart/strong/better/right, then what the heck am I? What am I made of? What do you base your identity off of?

 

This takes more introspection to answer fully than I currently feel compelled to employ with a deadline hanging over my head, but, uh, I don't define myself solely by those qualities.

[verhrzn]

That is not true at all. Not all men judge you on your resemblance to Kate Moss. They would if you had no personality to speak of and were interested in someone with Barbie-looks, but let's be honest here: you do have a personality to speak of. You actually have a lot of interesting things to say, and to fair number of men, a lot of good interests.

 

This guy may not have been into you. Who knows. You did not reject him, you rejected yourself for him. That is not a semantic difference.

 

Yeah, apparently a bad personality, since I have too much ego and aggression or something.

 

The guy wasn't into me. I wish people would just accept that I know what sort of people I attract, and it is NOT that guy. I did save him the bother of rejecting me; it's just so much faster and less painful than enduring half an hour with a stranger who can't wait to flee the restaurant.

 

That's where I think you need to resolve some things. Approaching conflict with this mindset is unlikely to be healthy, and I'm not just talking about romantic relationships. When you have any sort of disagreement with anyone, do you genuinely believe that the person who stops the fight 'loses'?

 

Pretty much, yes. Isn't that the definition of losing... you giving up and succeeding the point? I guess you could also come to a draw, the only "agree to disagree," but that means you just wasted X hours trying to convince each other only to come right back to square one.

 

 

Those are only assumptions. You don't even know that he isn't interested in you. Sure, some will not be, but if you approach ALL men with that idea, what do you expect will happen?

 

What's wrong with approaching men with the idea that I already know if I have a shot with them? That seems like a good idea; having realistic expectations. Knowing what you can attract, and what you can't. Why is that wrong?

 

 

This takes more introspection to answer fully than I currently feel compelled to employ with a deadline hanging over my head, but, uh, I don't define myself solely by those qualities.

 

Not solely those qualities, no. My point was more, if you take away those types of qualities (smart, strong, kind, funny, etc.) then aren't you taking away most of what makes up a person's identity?

 

We define ourselves based on other people. If everyone is smart, then no one is smart, right? The definition of "smart" ceases to exist, because smart is now average (everyone possesses the quality, thus is has no need for definition.) If everyone gets an "A" in the class, then getting an A is no longer a significant marker of anything, because everyone has that.

 

I don't go around describing myself as "human." Why? Because human is the norm. By saying I'm "smart," I am linguistically signally that I am above-average in intelligence... if I am above average, then there must be an average, and there must be a below average. So, I am only smart, comparably. I can only BE the definition of smart, so long as I display the quality to a greater degree than other people around me.

 

Does that make sense? That's why I really don't get the "don't compare yourself!" "Define yourself free of ego!" The world is built on comparisons and defining ourselves in proximity to others. It's a key cornerstone to how we function socially. So how the heck does it work to build your identity around a non-ego?? What does that even look like?

[Els]

Yeah, apparently a bad personality, since I have too much ego and aggression or something.

 

V, I was going to write a very long post in response to you, but again, I gave up. Because you are only going to see it as an attack, and criticism. Because any advice remotely involving change or introspection means that people are saying you are bad, bad, bad. Your competitive nature goes to the extent that whenever anyone suggests ANYthing, you instinctively go on 'yes I'm a horrible person' mode. That is not productive, and that is why I have shied away from it in most of my posts to you, except when you explicitly request suggestions for what you could do differently. Clearly, though, it isn't really working.

 

We define ourselves based on other people. If everyone is smart, then no one is smart, right? The definition of "smart" ceases to exist, because smart is now average (everyone possesses the quality, thus is has no need for definition.) If everyone gets an "A" in the class, then getting an A is no longer a significant marker of anything, because everyone has that.

 

I don't go around describing myself as "human." Why? Because human is the norm. By saying I'm "smart," I am linguistically signally that I am above-average in intelligence... if I am above average, then there must be an average, and there must be a below average. So, I am only smart, comparably. I can only BE the definition of smart, so long as I display the quality to a greater degree than other people around me.

 

Does that make sense? That's why I really don't get the "don't compare yourself!" "Define yourself free of ego!" The world is built on comparisons and defining ourselves in proximity to others. It's a key cornerstone to how we function socially. So how the heck does it work to build your identity around a non-ego?? What does that even look like?

 

Speaking solely of myself, as I have given up trying to give advice again for now, the answer is 'no', I don't think like that. I don't see everything as a competition, as winning or losing, as better or worse. I see most people as 'different'. Sure, there are people who are really the scum of the earth, who intentionally hurt other people by abuse, hurting, raping, etc. But within the realm of normalcy and decency, everyone in my eyes is equal, just different. I am no better or worse than them, but different from them, and I embrace myself for my unique combination of traits and qualities.

[verhrzn]

V, I was going to write a very long post in response to you, but again, I gave up. Because you are only going to see it as an attack, and criticism. Because any advice remotely involving change or introspection means that people are saying you are bad, bad, bad. Your competitive nature goes to the extent that whenever anyone suggests ANYthing, you instinctively go on 'yes I'm a horrible person' mode. That is not productive, and that is why I have shied away from it in most of my posts to you, except when you explicitly request suggestions for what you could do differently. Clearly, though, it isn't really working.

 

I don't take any advice as an attack or that I'm a bad person. Just the advice that says I'm, ya know, a bad person. Like advice that constantly harps on my overly-aggressive personality, or how I need to change absolutely everything about myself just to get a guy to notice me.

 

Honestly, do you not get how saying such things might get a bit tiresome, and I might react by throwing my hands up in the air and giving up?

 

I am trying to be introspective, but several posters seem unwilling to meet me halfway so that I get to retain who I am. I just get told to change over, and over, and over.

 

So, fine, I'm awful. And when I agree that I am awful and need to change everything, suddenly you act all put-out! Isn't that what you freaked wanted?? For me to change?

[Els]

...Nobody said you were a bad person, V! It's all in your head. We all have aspects of ourselves that we can potentially work on. ALL of us. Me, zengirl, d'arthez, you. Having them doesn't make you a bad person!

[verhrzn]

...Nobody said you were a bad person, V! It's all in your head. We all have aspects of ourselves that we can potentially work on. ALL of us. Me, zengirl, d'arthez, you. Having them doesn't make you a bad person!

 

... Saying I'm overly aggressive and negative and egotistical? That somehow the male equivalent of me would get his face beaten in for being so aggressive?? And somehow that doesn't translate to "awful person"?

 

I mean, I started this thread to kinda be like "Hey maybe love is just unlucky" and it's descending into, yet again, telling me all the ways I suck and need to change, and how it's totally my fault. Again.

[d'Arthez]

Yeah, apparently a bad personality, since I have too much ego and aggression or something.

V., be fair to yourself. Did I suggest you have a bad personality? Too much ego? Are too aggressive? No. I did not. I did not even tell you to change.

 

Does that make sense? That's why I really don't get the "don't compare yourself!" "Define yourself free of ego!" The world is built on comparisons and defining ourselves in proximity to others. It's a key cornerstone to how we function socially. So how the heck does it work to build your identity around a non-ego?? What does that even look like?

V., think about it: If you are smart (and you are!), do you spend every second reminding yourself that you are smart? Or, do you just do things your way, without thinking "I'm smart"?

 

We can factually establish it. Take an IQ-test, look at your GPA - or do you think that the numbers fluctuate to such an extent that they are virtually meaningless? Whatever people tell you, you should know you are smart, and you have a factual point of reference. Some people may be smarter than you, but that does not make you stupid. Not by a long stretch. You don't have to be on top of the pyramid to possess a certain characteristic.

[verhrzn]

V., think about it: If you are smart (and you are!), do you spend every second reminding yourself that you are smart? Or, do you just do things your way, without thinking "I'm smart"?

 

We can factually establish it. Take an IQ-test, look at your GPA - or do you think that the numbers fluctuate to such an extent that they are virtually meaningless? Whatever people tell you, you should know you are smart, and you have a factual point of reference. Some people may be smarter than you, but that does not make you stupid. Not by a long stretch.

 

Actually, yes, I have to tell myself I'm smart pretty constantly. I honestly have no basis for thinking I am intelligent. My IQ is average, my GPA is average, my grades are average-to-awful. By every stretch of the imagination, I am average (or awful) in every aspect of my life.

 

... Which is why it's freaking awful to have a guy compete with me. He can't just let me be good at something. He can't just let me have the one thing I might be kinda, sorta, decent at.

 

All I have is what I fight for. Factual evidence shows I actually am what Zengirl wants me to be... a big, boring blob of a human with no talents and no personality. Hell, apparently being aggressive is my only distinguishing characteristic. I suspect that if you took that away, men would notice me even less than they already do.

[d'Arthez]

I mean, I started this thread to kinda be like "Hey maybe love is just unlucky" and it's descending into, yet again, telling me all the ways I suck and need to change, and how it's totally my fault. Again.

Maybe you are unlucky. Maybe you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. You certainly do not have a terrible personality, and neither are you ugly. Sometimes love is a numbers game.

 

As I said in an earlier thread by you, if you'd live locally, I'd be interested in dating you. I am not exactly the type of guy that is chasing tail week in week out.

 

V., tell me honestly. What is your IQ?

 

He can't just let me be good at something. He can't just let me have the one thing I might be kinda, sorta, decent at.

That kind of guy is so insecure that he should not even be considered relationship material.

[Els]

... Saying I'm overly aggressive and negative and egotistical? That somehow the male equivalent of me would get his face beaten in for being so aggressive?? And somehow that doesn't translate to "awful person"?

 

Haven't you KNOWN some guys who have gotten into fights before? Does that automatically make them 'awful people'?

 

I mean, I started this thread to kinda be like "Hey maybe love is just unlucky" and it's descending into, yet again, telling me all the ways I suck and need to change, and how it's totally my fault. Again.

 

I am going to repeat, again, what I actually said to you, and if you insist that it means 'you're a bad person', I'll just leave it at that.

 

I said luck is definitely a factor, but it is the only factor you can't change. Therefore, you cannot attribute everything solely to luck before you have worked on what you can actually change. Luck is still a factor, and always will be, for everyone, but until you have reached the point of doing all that you can possibly do, it will not be the sole factor. If you do not do some of these things because you do not want to do them, it is a choice. Again, to use the Magic analogy: If you do not want to put more than one Birthing Pod in your deck because you want to keep the space for other cards, it is your choice. And if you do not draw it, yes, it is partly luck, because you still had a 1/60 chance of drawing it and did not, but it is also partly due to your choice and playstyle.

 

I only informed you about what I thought you could change because you asked me. You're fine the way you are. But there are ways you can increase your odds of getting a partner. Getting a partner isn't solely related to how 'good' a person you are. It's related to what portion of the opposite sex you are compatible with and desirable to (say, 1/60), what you do to increase your odds of meeting those people (say, artifact retrieval), and finally, yes, luck.

[verhrzn]

V.' date=' tell me honestly. What is your IQ? [/quote']

 

Not sure about the number. Got it tested back in high school, when your brain is supposedly at it's most flexible. I just remember it was in the average range.

[d'Arthez]

IQ is quite flexible in high school. And a test is only true for a particular moment. You grow and develop as a person.

 

I honestly would be surprised if your IQ would be in the "average" band. You would not write as well as you do if that were the case. Honestly. You are much smarter than you give yourself credit for.

[ThaWholigan]

Not sure about the number. Got it tested back in high school, when your brain is supposedly at it's most flexible. I just remember it was in the average range.

I wouldn't use IQ to measure how smart you are at all. I don't. My IQ has fluctuated a great deal over the years. It went from 120 to 164 and then back to 129. And I'm no academic genius. You are very good at articulating yourself, and I don't think your aggression is actually a problem - in fact I think you should embrace it!