Lonely Ronin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Luck of the draw, my friend...luck of the draw... just like real life.
zengirl Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I'll start with this: comparison: (noun) 1. the act of comparing. 2. the state of being compared. 3. a likening; illustration by similitude; comparative estimate or statement. 4. Rhetoric . the considering of two things with regard to some characteristic that is common to both, as the likening of a hero to a lion in courage. 5. capability of being compared or likened. I generally use the first and fourth definitions, as I feel they are most relevant to dating... The first definition is not REALLY a definition unless you drill down and define the word comparing. Definition of COMPARE transitive verb 1: to represent as similar : liken <shall I compare thee to a summer's day? — Shakespeare> 2 a : to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences <compare your responses with the answers> b : to view in relation to <tall compared to me> <easy compared with the last test> 3 : to inflect or modify (an adjective or adverb) according to the degrees of comparison 4: to be equal or alike <nothing compares to you> As you can see, these all have a strong connotation to linking things together. Which is the limitation of comparison as a form of analysis -- you are comparing 2 or more things to each other. I have said many times that comparisons between people is the problem with what you suggested, which is typically what one speaks of in comparing in dating. It is a limiting way of seeing things that has no imagination or real analysis. I honestly feel that your education analogy is not the most compelling one you could have offered...mainly because you have a vested interest in all of your students succeeding in your class...and that would be analogous to saying that you want all men to eventually "succeed" with you, whatever that may entail... I used only an analogy of assessment. Plenty of assessment is done by someone who does not coach or teach the students and done purely objectively. There are other ways the analogy is poor if you use it as a comparison as you are, however. For instance, you couldn't stop assessing someone mid-assessment, I never had an actual rubric for dates, etc, etc. An analogy is not a direct comparison either. It is saying X is like Y as Z is like A. So I think you're missing how analogies work in attempting to directly compare my analogy to the situation. I was saying that a rubric method is preferred in education over a direct curve, similarly to the way more thorough analysis is preferred in dating to comparison. Not that you could literally use a rubric. Or, for that matter, a direct curve. I do view life competitively, because society is becoming increasingly competitive, and I am a part of that society. I live my life with abundance, and I've never gone without, despite not having a competitive attitude. In fact, the less competitive my attitude has become, the happier and more full my life has become. We clearly have very different views of society --- I do agree it has some very broken, competitive aspects, but it has other aspects you can choose to focus on if you wish. How do employers conduct their hiring process? Do they take the very first applicant, give them the job, and keep them around for a while to see how they work out? Doubtful, as it is both wasteful and time-consuming. Instead, they compare candidates to each other based on a predetermined set of criteria and select the best ones to interview (i.e., go on the "first date" with). That's a very limited view of what happens. I never go into an interview thinking I'm competing with anyone --- I go in thinking that I'm seeing whether it's a good fit. If it's the right fit, I will get it. If it's not, I'm better off anyway. Of course, any employer would need to see if I had the qualifications, attributes, and personality to fit in at that company and do the job well. There's a lot to that, and unlike romantic partners, a company usually can't be without a position, so they may not find the right person, sadly, and give it to someone based on comparison. But when you find the RIGHT position or the RIGHT person, no comparison is needed. Really, that's my experience. Everything just clicks. Most of my life goes like that. And with the advent of online dating and the resulting rise of multi-dating, dating has become exactly this. Evaluating profiles based on a set of criteria, narrowing down the pool to a few prospects, and "conducting the interview." Not how I saw multi-dating. Again, I certainly believe people should screen --- for safety reasons if nothing else --- when dating strangers and use their best judgment on who may be a good person for them to spend time with, but not in a competitive way or with the limitations of comparison. Better analysis is preferred. Now, you may say that you don't use criteria to "compare" men, even in the online realm, and that you treat them all "individually." I'll try to break it down for you, Barney-style. I assume you're heterosexual, so your first filter is probably "man." The online dating system will compare each profile to this proverbial archetype that is being formed from your criteria to eliminate all women from the pool. You have just compared and contrasted all the profiles with each other based on a particular characteristic and eliminated half the candidates. Congratulations! Elimination, based on characteristics, is not comparison. For instance, one could select a characteristic that eliminated no one or everyone. Elimination would only be comparison if it was based on comparison. Again, this shows a failure to understand what 'comparing' is. At any rate, a lot of my elimination --- though I appreciate the job the algorithm did --- was based on a more holistic and emotional form of analysis. I didn't tend to drill down by "stats" per se, but by the way a man wrote, etc, etc. Stats did typically include location, gender, and age, though again, that has nothing to do with comparison. Even if no men under 50 were left, I wouldn't date a man that old. I'd be alone. Comparison would not help them. Luckily, I don't believe in scarcity enough to believe 'comparison' is really necessary, even with jobs. Lately, I've always found a job when job hunting that is perfect, that felt right, and that needed no comparison. That's also the only feeling I'd accept in love. Or anything, really. Eventually, as you date more, your criteria will evolve based on previous men you've dated, so with each new criteria, you are comparing all future men with that of previous men. Comparing people to previous partners or non-partners is exactly the problem with your system, and that's exactly what I wouldn't do. I honestly don't know how to break it down any further...if you want to interpret the word 'comparison' in a way that makes you feel better about yourself, then have at it. I'm just presenting a view of all of this which is logically accurate (to me). And this view of dating may offend some because they feel it's non-PC and don't want to be accused of it themselves... I don't care if people are PC or have some urge to feel better about myself. I simply don't live my life with the same mindset as you. Why can't you accept that other people view and experience the world differently than you?
Recommended Posts