SincereOnlineGuy Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 Dude. Visiting isn't messaging. This isn't pretentious. This isn't about my ego. This is about trying to strategize for solutions to a problem. And in fact, in real life partially because I am so shy, NOBODY is chasing me. okay. And thanks for rubbing that one in. Hence the need to go online in the first place. I'm a rare guy who gets it: What you have are data processing challenges... and you are giving consideration to the very real idea that each data bit is in fact a real person who, while sometimes demanding strange contortionist-like efforts, could have been the one. That this one (bit of data) would in this case, be potentially so significant, causes you to fear having let certain, especially human-seeming bits of data not make it through your data mining. You ARE exactly the type of person for whom OLD is best suited... but of course the scores of applicants seems to urge you too quickly toward the fool-hearty move that is dashing right out to meet in public before you have anything invested in the person you'll be meeting, which only serves to exacerbate the effects of your shyness and greatly reduces the chances that you'll hit it off with any particular individual. I think a vital early step to your approach needs to be the understanding that there are likely scores and scores of individuals who could be compatible with you. Lose the crazy notion that you're searching for THE soulmate or any such thing. Take the pressure off, if only just a little, for reasoning that there are perhaps hundreds out there, within your dating arena, who could be compatible enough with you to allow you to plant the emotional/personal investment needed to get you to a place of clear understanding as to their compatibility. At least make that one data bit far less important on your grand scale... and focus instead on the many live ones in the waters. And yeah, in contrast to the guys who are grumbling here, you really do have the opposite vantage point of OLD... and it's gonna be so darn hard to convince you to take your time despite the mounting numbers, and try if you can to *notice* the ones who seem to have time they are willing to invest in you, before they demand to meet face-to-face. You don't owe them anything - they're the ones who signed themselves up for OLD - you didn't sign them up. For you especially, the whole idea is to interact enough on the net so as to have a reasonable knowledge of the pawns in the lives of one another so that conversation will typically thrive, as each side will likely know what questions to ask to avoid too many dead spots in said conversation. Don't let the 1200-on-the-way-to-12,000 names in your 'inbox' deter you from going at your own pace. And you have to be 'firm' on a lot of those data-reduction constraints just to keep the numbers manageable, so it's OK to do so, with the clear understanding that hundreds of truly compatible candidates are out there for you... and that all it takes is one...
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 i agree 100% with the above. i often turn off visitor notification, because it's meaningless if there's no message. the only purpose of visitor notification is weeding purposes: if they visit & don't message, they are crossed off the list, added to the 'hide'/not interested heap. this usually will stop them from repeat visiting my profile, which is an annoyance. there's no point in wasting my time looking at the profiles of visitors who didn't drop a message on their way off my profile. j Unless of course, shyness and/or introversion is a quality that you are looking for. And then, 9 times out of 10, the ones that drop you a message aren't going to fulfill that criteria.
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 I'm a rare guy who gets it: What you have are data processing challenges... and you are giving consideration to the very real idea that each data bit is in fact a real person who, while sometimes demanding strange contortionist-like efforts, could have been the one. That this one (bit of data) would in this case, be potentially so significant, causes you to fear having let certain, especially human-seeming bits of data not make it through your data mining. You ARE exactly the type of person for whom OLD is best suited... but of course the scores of applicants seems to urge you too quickly toward the fool-hearty move that is dashing right out to meet in public before you have anything invested in the person you'll be meeting, which only serves to exacerbate the effects of your shyness and greatly reduces the chances that you'll hit it off with any particular individual. I think a vital early step to your approach needs to be the understanding that there are likely scores and scores of individuals who could be compatible with you. Lose the crazy notion that you're searching for THE soulmate or any such thing. Take the pressure off, if only just a little, for reasoning that there are perhaps hundreds out there, within your dating arena, who could be compatible enough with you to allow you to plant the emotional/personal investment needed to get you to a place of clear understanding as to their compatibility. At least make that one data bit far less important on your grand scale... and focus instead on the many live ones in the waters. And yeah, in contrast to the guys who are grumbling here, you really do have the opposite vantage point of OLD... and it's gonna be so darn hard to convince you to take your time despite the mounting numbers, and try if you can to *notice* the ones who seem to have time they are willing to invest in you, before they demand to meet face-to-face. You don't owe them anything - they're the ones who signed themselves up for OLD - you didn't sign them up. For you especially, the whole idea is to interact enough on the net so as to have a reasonable knowledge of the pawns in the lives of one another so that conversation will typically thrive, as each side will likely know what questions to ask to avoid too many dead spots in said conversation. Don't let the 1200-on-the-way-to-12,000 names in your 'inbox' deter you from going at your own pace. And you have to be 'firm' on a lot of those data-reduction constraints just to keep the numbers manageable, so it's OK to do so, with the clear understanding that hundreds of truly compatible candidates are out there for you... and that all it takes is one... SincereOnlineGuy, Forgive the not-really-French, but Holy crap you speak my language! I mean seriously, if you were in my area, single, and my age-ish... You really do get it. "What you have are data processing challenges... and you are giving consideration to the very real idea that each data bit is in fact a real person who, while sometimes demanding strange contortionist-like efforts, could have been the one." Exactly. Although I prefer, now, to think of it as "a one." not, "the one." I think most women should be encouraged from a younger age to think the same. It is the concept of "the one" that leads so many women to pine over pure *******s for way too long. And what you said about being rushed to meet in person. I get so sick of that. So many guys put pressure on me to give the phone number away immediately (made that mistake once, and ended up with a spiteful picture of his privates after I let him know very politely that it wasn't going to be working., I'm sorry, but dudes that I am talking with on the phone for the very first time should really consider not bringing up a bunch of speculation about what I would be like in bed, thank you very much!), and want to meet for a date right away. And I did go on a date with some dude who asked for my number at the grocery store, but he was very sweet but it was excruciating for the very reasons you describe. I've had the best luck with men who I've actually messaged back and forth for weeks before meeting in person. I really need to already feel like I know the guy, and even then its going to be a little scary. I don't know that there are hundreds. I wish there were. Unfortunately, I suffer from the problem of needing intelligence as high or higher than my own. Geez, how to be accurate and truthful to my situation without sounding boastful. I will put it this way and those who are in the know will know. Depending on which IQ normal chart you believe, I am between two and three, or in some a little above three standard deviations above the population mean. This does rather add to the complicated nature of my situation. It is often disheartening to observe also, while out, how many very intelligent men will sit there with some hot babe blonde who glazes their eyes over with boredom. Anyway, I think perhaps given the uniqueness of my criteria we may be talking maybe forty or fifty out of 1000, but that is still much better than 1. But thank you for getting it and for speaking my language.
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 how do you figure? introversion & assertiveness are not mutually exclusive. No, and there are exceptions. A good friend of mine who is definitely introverted messaged me first. But the large proportion of men who messaged me first have by and large been extraverts.
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 that's no indication introverts are unassertive, just that extraverts are more prevalent. you indicate early in the thread, if not the op, that you are getting matched with men outside your geographic location. i don't see how you can expect to have a manageable pool if you don't even have geographic constraints on your match searches. like i said in my earlier posts, there are ways to minimize the riff-raff & incompatibles. it's up to you to make use of the site features. but to each their own. j The limitations happen to be with that particular site. I am not stupid. Please do not act like I am because what works for you would necessarily rule out many good potential men who have the qualities I am looking for. I have my geographic limits set to 25 miles within my area. Doesn't stop, apparently, men from Paris and several from Qatar and states halfway across the nation from seeing me pop up in their searches, I guess. There are ways to minimize the riff-raff, as you said, one of the main ones being hide any who visit and don't message, which largely limits me to men who don't fit my particular criteria, since most of the men who actually message me first turn out to be extraverts. And please, I am an introvert myself, I know for a fact that assertiveness and introversion are not mutually exclusive, however, I also know that introvert men, by and large, on that site, seem to not reach out until messaged first. It is like their visit to your page is their reaching out, for which, they need to see some evidence of your interest before they will act. The problem with many system builders, of which clearly you are one, is that sometimes they have difficulty perceiving that the system that works so well for one, would really not work well for another. But please, do not treat me like I am stupid because I know immediately that what works for you and the advice that you gave would largely put most of the men that I would be interested off the table. I am glad that those strategies work for you.
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 First thing, I never insulted you. However, in exasperatedly throwing up your hands, so to speak, and assuming that because I was getting visitors from far away meant that I of course, must not be intelligent enough to figure out to put geographic constraints, you don't need to tell me outright that you think I am stupid, the message comes through pretty clearly though. I do not think it does. listen. I do my best always to treat people with respect. However, I also am going to point out when people do not treat me with respect. I am, thank you, intelligent enough to put a geographic filter on. And the tone of your message very clearly indicated that if I wasn't taking your sage advice, or at least, taking advantage as you saw fit, of the dating site's features, then clearly I must not be all that bright. I guess I don't see how it is insulting, to point out that someone else has rather condescended to you in their post, as you did. I think it is much more insulting, in fact, to actually be condescended to. I didn't treat you callously. Asking you not to treat me like I am stupid, is not being callous. It is asking you to please treat me with the respect that you would ask. And trying to act like I am trying to use my HSP as an excuse to treat people callously is rather a low blow. because I am not. System builder. It is a term used often linked with MBTI stuff. I rather assumed you were one, based on the system (rather admirable, for the qualities and things that you are searching for, I like it, it just wouldn't work for me!) that you had created for yourself with OLD. And I know it might seem odd, but I was actually giving you a compliment, to my own mind, at least, in calling you one. Obviously visitors who don't message are no more or less likely to be introverts. Please don't oversimplify what I say. However, it stands to reason, that if the greatest numbers of people who message me turn out to be extraverts, in the pool of those who don't message, a good number are likely to be introverts, though obviously many will be extraverts as well. I can stand and take a bunch of stuff. But one thing that really does not sit well with me is when people, no matter whether covertly or overtly, insult my intelligence. And yes, I'm sorry, but annoyedly suggesting that I hadn't bothered to use a most basic feature that would obviously begin to solve some of my problem, does covertly suggest that I might have a few crayons short of a coloring box. Which, I have quite an overflowing one, thank you. Look. I am very tired tonight. I am hurting tonight. I stupidly went and looked at my ex's Facebook tonight and couldn't really get any more any sense of a real breathing, living human being behind the pixels. And it kind of freaked me out a bit and made me sad okay. And I'm sorry. I just. I'm not having a good night. i don't know why you are becoming insulting & argumentative. being highly sensitive does not entitle you to treat others callously, you know. excuse me, what does it mean to be a 'system builder'? and where do i demonstrate difficulty perceiving that some (which?) system which works well for me may not work for another? i said, to each their own. i need not qualify my posts any more than that. well i do find your post to be a slight overreaction & defensiveness. i see no cause to attribute to me a treatment of you as stupid. i do not, however, see it as a problem to receive messages from men outside my geographic area. i simply message back 'you're too far away. sorry'. & that's it. you say i have difficulty perceiving how this may not work for you. am i not to expect some rationale for why this may not work for you? visitors who don't message are no more an indication of introversion than are messages an indication of extraversion. again, assertiveness & introversion do very well go hand in hand. visitors who don't message are more likely just not interested, than merely introverted. you say i have difficulty perceiving why my methods may not work for you. i believe you have difficulty perceiving real traits in others because of preconceived stereotypes you hold of introversion, extraversion, & whatever this 'system builder' label you have applied to me. that's my last post. i've had quite enough insult & pigeon-holing, thank you very much. best of luck. j
Mascara Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 I don't know if you missed my question, but I asked how many of those are converting to messages. In my experience, and I don't know if you're new to OLD, but those who visit and don't message mostly aren't shy. They just aren't very interested. You could message them, and they might half heartedly reply (because men don't get many messages), and then you'll enter into a half hearted correspondence leading to a half hearted date, leading to you posting here wondering why he doesn't text you very often. Or you could let them contact you first. OLD is the perfect medium for shy guys, if they are interested they will contact you. 1
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 I don't know if you missed my question, but I asked how many of those are converting to messages. In my experience, and I don't know if you're new to OLD, but those who visit and don't message mostly aren't shy. They just aren't very interested. You could message them, and they might half heartedly reply (because men don't get many messages), and then you'll enter into a half hearted correspondence leading to a half hearted date, leading to you posting here wondering why he doesn't text you very often. Or you could let them contact you first. OLD is the perfect medium for shy guys, if they are interested they will contact you. Again. The guys I am interested in, are actually shy. Also, I am not saying that all guys who visit me and don't message are shy. I am saying that largely the ones who do, aren't, and thus I'm not interested in them. The best dates and experiences I have had with OLD, have been actually, from guys that were interested, visited, but did not message, and waited until I messaged them, and then we messaged back and forth for several weeks before meeting.
irc333 Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 data processing challenges If people are starting to use this terminology more frequently (thank heavens I've only seen it occasionally used in these forums) when it comes to dating, I'll probably give up dating altogether. lol
Author AnyaNova Posted December 15, 2013 Author Posted December 15, 2013 If people are starting to use this terminology more frequently (thank heavens I've only seen it occasionally used in these forums) when it comes to dating, I'll probably give up dating altogether. lol But that is exactly what it is. :-p
irc333 Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 But that is exactly what it is. :-p Possibly, or its just verbiage used to make someone sound smarter lol (even I did it, I used the word verbiage, lol) 1
Author AnyaNova Posted December 16, 2013 Author Posted December 16, 2013 Possibly, or its just verbiage used to make someone sound smarter lol (even I did it, I used the word verbiage, lol) Yeah, keep talking like that and I'll do a study and run an ANOVA to see if there is any justification for the theory.
Author AnyaNova Posted December 16, 2013 Author Posted December 16, 2013 I don't know what your profile looks like, but as a guy, if I visit your profile and I don't message you, it's one of three things: There was something on there that proved completely incompatible with me, either by my determination, or something you plainly stated that I cannot conform to (usually the latter).Your pictures revealed I wasn't really into your body type, which is perfectly okay, to each their own... and a thumbnail should only be a headshot.There wasn't anything for me to riff off on your profile. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this. While I'm totally open to chatting a bit with someone no matter how sparse their content, there's an inordinate number of profiles that lack any sort of information whatsoever. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "Just ask." as an entire profile. No joke. In that case, it's up to them to ask me questions since I've got some actual meat in my prof. "Your move" as they say. Oh trust me, there is plenty to riff off of in my profile. :-) From the reading I have done into Ekman's work and micro-expressions, to my love of science fiction, both literary and televised, to my career choice (music therapy, and I want to spend the bulk of my time in neurologic music therapy), and in fact, I even have a pretty cool Ursula K. LeGuin quote. But aside from that, there are some guys who I have found, who the usual philosophy of, "if they don't message it means they're not interested or that interested" don't apply to. And it seems like, it is those guys that I seem to have the greatest compatibility with, like my ex for example.
Under The Radar Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 Looks like you need my OLD Survival Glossary .
SincereOnlineGuy Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 Your pictures revealed I wasn't really into your body type, which is perfectly okay, to each their own... and a thumbnail should only be a headshot. What these guys are telling you, AnyaNova, is that (it is perfectly fair for them to quickly "process" you in their minds, based only on your appearance, but in no way is it OK for you to consider anything but the relative speed of your own heartbeat, while needing to winnow-down the vast numbers of actual responses your profile receives). With this absurd mindset, these guys finally have numbers/data comparable to yours, based only on the fact that they often entertain themselves by flipping through profiles and screening female appearances in hurry-up fashion (***nearly always in a league well outside of their own). They don't seem to understand that time constraints render the challenges more significant for those who are dealing with others who are actually interested....
SincereOnlineGuy Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 How do you figure? Having no idea what I look like, ... You probably should have done further editing, or read more closely. Nothing here is contingent upon what you look like.
Thegreatestthing Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 I usually get 40 msges a day the past three months,all from jock like good looking guys lately. Now suddenly I'm getting 2-3a day this whole week,2???!don't understand it,I haven't changed my profile in any way. And btw I reply to every single message I get regardless of how they look.
Recommended Posts