What people look for in MOTAS
Noemi Berry
***** This is long! If you're in a hurry, 'j' it now! ******
>Since most people eventually do find SOMEBODY, I can only assume that
>most people do indeed possess at least some sex appeal. So why do
>homely men have so much more trouble attracting beautiful women?
>Why do homely women have so much trouble attracting desirable men?
>Why, with most couples, are both partners comparably good looking?
>If people really do choose their mates primarily on the basis of
>character and personality, why aren't the pairings more random
>with respect to looks?
>
....
>
> When judging your personality and character,
> people are heavily influenced by how good-looking
> you are.
>
One interesting theory from social psychology has to do with
people "matching" each other. That is, IN GENERAL, people have a
pretty good concept of where they rate in attractiveness and tend to
be attracted to those who are on about the same "level". This
is an *extremely* broad generalization, but seems to hold true in many
cases.
I've rarely seen an awful-looking guy with a beautiful girl
or vice versa, but one does tend to see a lot of average-looking couples
or gorgeous couples or hideous couples. (Then again, we have Christie
Brinkley and Billy Joel! :-) )
Perhaps "matching" explains only the initial attraction - naturally
one's "matching" in looks might not be the best predictor in "matching"
for personality characteristics. Or is it? People who are attractive
are often percieved as socially adept, well-adjusted and happier (according
to social psych).
The theory is that because attractive people have always
been TREATED as though they're OK, they ARE OK. Perhaps Blonds Have More
Fun because people *believe* Blonds Have More Fun and therefore *treat*
Blonds as though they Have More Fun, and therefore Blonds *DO* Have More
Fun (again, this is VERY broad - there are many miserable blonds and many
happy brunettes!)! Does this sound like an infinite loop?
So, if the matching theory holds up, one might meet more people
who are "matched" in attractiveness, thereby increasing the chances
of winding up with someone matched in attractiveness, even though the
final factors may have nothing to do with attractiveness (directly).
>See how easy it is? How do I personally choose my own dates, you ask?
>Why, I go on the basis of personality and character, just like you guys!
>
> Frank Silbermann
Yes, you probably go on the basis of personality and character that
may have been shaped partly by going through life as an attractive or
unattractive person!
[I certainly feel my personal life would be a lot different if
I was 30 pounds heavier. I suspect my personality (often confident and
friendly) would be different if I went through life perceiving myself
as unattractive. For a long time I DID perceive myself as unattractive -
that kind of perception is acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I guess I
ACTED unattractive and hence MADE myself unattractive. Now I feel I am
judged on the basis of personality characteristics, many of those shaped by
confidence developed from being perceived as attractive (well, cute).]
Everything said here is largely hypothetical and reflects some
ideas from social psychology. Please don't mail me telling me I'm
completely wrong because you're gorgeous and your SO isn't! These are
broad generalizations and suggestions!!!
(Incidentally, what exactly IS an "MOTA"?)
-Noemi Berry
-------------
"Some people make people happy wherever they go; others make people
happy WHENever they go!"
UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi
ARPA: no...@rochester.arpa
-------------
--
-------------
"Some people make people happy wherever they go; others make people
happy WHENever they go!"
UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi
ARPA: no...@rochester.arpa
Michael M. Sykora
There may be one point you overlooked. I can't say that most people behave
this way, but I imagine they might: While character and intelligence
are very important to me in a potential SO, they are not the only
important factors. I am considerably less likely to approach a woman I don't
find attractive than a woman I do. Since the probability of anything coming
out of it seems the same in either case, if I am initiating the contact I do
so with those I find most attractive.
Mike Sykora
Frank Silbermann
>>Since most people eventually do find SOMEBODY, I can only assume that
>>most people do indeed possess at least some sex appeal. So why do
>>homely men have so much more trouble attracting beautiful women?
>>Why do homely women have so much trouble attracting desirable men?
>>Why, with most couples, are both partners comparably good looking?
>>If people really do choose their mates primarily on the basis of
>>character and personality, why aren't the pairings more random
>>with respect to looks?
>> ....
>>Conclusion: Assuming people REALLY choose their SO's on the basis
>> of personality and character -- then when judging your
>> personality and character, people are heavily influenced
>> by how good-looking you are.
> One interesting theory from social psychology has to do with
> people "matching" each other. That is, IN GENERAL, people have
> a pretty good concept of where they rate in attractiveness and
> TEND TO BE ATTRACTED TO THOSE WHO ARE ON ABOUT THE SAME "LEVEL".
Psychology Today's explaination was that people choose their partners
to be AS GOOD LOOKING AS POSSIBLE. It is only to avoid pointless
frustration, disappointment and rejection that they settle for the
best they can get, i.e. someone whose looks are comparable.
> I've rarely seen an awful-looking guy with a beautiful girl
> or vice versa, but one does tend to see a lot of average-looking
> couples or gorgeous couples or hideous couples. (Then again,
> we have Christie Brinkley and Billy Joel! :-) )
Occasionally wealth, power, fame or good social connections will substitute
for good looks.
MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available
to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most
effective things you can do is to become better-looking.
Frank Silbermann
The Polymath
>
>For many year I believed that people simply lied about what was really
>important to them (how cynical!). But recently, an article in
>Psychology Today explained the answer:
_Psychology Today_ is not exactly an authoritative source. Their articles
are typically about 5 years behind the state of the art and, as far as I
know, they aren't refereed. A more accurate title might be _Popular
Psychology_. I'm not necesssarily criticizing the article Frank is citing,
but I'd want to see a lot of bibliography and coroborating evidence before
I took PT's word for anything. It's very easy to crank out something like
this that _sounds_ plausible. It also sounds plausible that a 10 pound
weight falls ten times as fast as a 1 pound weight.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
Miles Murdocca
MOTAS = Member Of The Attractive Sex.
Seriously, I believe it means "Member Of The Any Sex". It is intended
to include all relationships, and not just MOTOS (Members of the Opposite
Sex.)
Miles Murdocca, 4B-525, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!miles
Judy McMullan
Member of the Appropriate Sex
where the appropriate sex is the one you find attractive (which is not
necessarily the opposite sex). Therefore, "member of the attractive sex" would
cover the same ground.
VICTOR ROMANO
> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most
> effective things you can do is to become better-looking.
>
> Frank Silbermann
OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean
the obvious, like an overweight person losing pounds
(easier said than done) or removing of any ugly
characteristics (e.g. acne). I mean, what does one
do if he/she is just "plain"?
Victor Romano
-----------------------------
What did you dream? It's alright, we told you what to dream.
-The Screaming Abdabs
J. Eric Roskos
> I'd want to see a lot of bibliography and coroborating evidence
> before I took PT's word for anything.
Um... we're dealing with PSYCHOLOGY here, a social science in which
essentially conflicting theories coexist, usually with substantial
corroborating evidence. Not that I disagree with your criticism of
Psychology Today, though.
I must admit that I agree with Frank (for once :-)). My observation is that
the majority of people, particularly younger ones who have not spent a large
portion of their time attached in some sense to one person, attempt to
approach their SO-selection [or whatever you wish to call this process]
with noble intent, looking for a long list of higher personal attributes;
but whatever they are looking for, their JUDGEMENT of these attributes is
heavily biased by their emotional perception of people, which tends to be
influenced by the person's appearance. The problem being that people do
expect some emotional reward for an interpersonal relationship with another
person of the "MOTAS" category; and they can escape from this physical
attractiveness bias only when their perception of other, nonphysical but
emotionally-moving attributes become the primary ones. This is why I said
"younger people, and those ... one person". People who have had lasting
attachments with one person tend to make these emotional judgements by
transferrence (seeing properties of another person that remind them of
the person they knew before, which suggests to them in a subconscious way
that this person is in many ways like this other person), and thus are
subject to another kind of bias.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
G. T. Samson
>
> MOTAS = Member Of The Attractive Sex.
>
I thought it meant Member Of The Appropriate Sex.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: G. T. Samson
Quote: "No matter where you go...there you are." -- B. Banzai
Other_Quote: "You speak treason!" "Fluently!" -- The Doctor
ARPA: gts@wjh12 [preferred] OR samson%h-sc4@harvard
USMail: Lowell H-41, Harvard U., Cambridge, MA 02138
P J Carstensen
age, a certain amount of their personality is reflected in their appearance.
(classic case is the generally sulky person...) I suspect that is one reason
that I care less about "classically good-looking" (except as sort of an
academic pleasure of "just looking" *grin*) and more about "nice eyes" and
overall "happy aspect"....
Patty
Noemi Berry
>>MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available
>> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most
>> effective things you can do is to become better-looking.
>>
>> Frank Silbermann
>
> OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean
> the obvious, like an overweight person losing pounds
> (easier said than done) or removing of any ugly
> characteristics (e.g. acne). I mean, what does one
> do if he/she is just "plain"?
>
>
> Victor Romano
Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as
much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics.
Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive
self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness".
TRY to imagine Richard Gere shuffling along, slouching. It
just DOESN'T work!
Noemi Berry
--
-------------
"I'm young, I'm in college, I'll get over it!" - Roxanne Wilkerson
Dana S. Nau
>
>Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure:
>you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much
>more difficult.
Which kind of pie do you prefer--apple or cherry? Whichever kind you
prefer, what is the reason for your preference? An argument can be made
that the most important reason is simply that your own choice to prefer what
you prefer.
The same argument can be made about self-esteem. If I'm going to choose to
like myself because I satisfy some set of external criteria, then I won't be
able to like myself if I ever fail to satisfy those criteria. The ideal
reason for liking oneself would be "I like myself because I CHOOSE to do
so". Or, if you want a different reason, "I like myself because I enjoy
life more when I like myself."
"I like myself because I choose to do so" may seem kind of arbitrary--but
what external criteria are there that aren't just as arbitrary?
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
J. Eric Roskos
Piscataway, NJ, writes:
> I suspect that is one reason that I care less about "classically
> good-looking" and more about "nice eyes" and overall "happy
> aspect"....
But, interestingly, perhaps this is just the female-equivalent of the male
body-evaluation method of judging attractiveness. I recall reading somewhere
one of those numerous surveys, asking what men vs. women find attractive;
whereas men listed various body parts at the top of the list, women listed
"eyes". (Not that eyes are necessarily not more effective in evaluating some
other personal aspect than are the other items listed...)
Peter Barbee
Try developing style. I realize this is difficult and do not say this from
the position of one who thinks they have a lot of style, but at least I try to
look/act in a manner that is distinctive to me and consistent with the
"person" I want to be.
There is a lot more to attractiveness than the shape of your nose and the
heigth of your cheekbones.
PB
Richard Brower
>for good looks.
>
>MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available
> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most
> effective things you can do is to become better-looking.
>
> Frank Silbermann
Or obtain wealth, power, fame, and/or good social connections.
Barbara Gniewosz Theus
>> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most
>> effective things you can do is to become better-looking.
>>
>> Frank Silbermann
>
> OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean
>
>
>-----------------------------
Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better
looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. (There are many
self-help books to help you do that).
I used to work with a guy who many of us felt was less than attractive.
He often bragged about his good looks! He honestly felt he was a perfect 10.
His dates were usually models, beauty pageant winners, etc.
Noemi Berry
>> Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as
>> much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics.
>> Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive
>> self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness".
>
>
>
>you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much
>more difficult.
>
OF COURSE you need a reason! Or a few. I never meant just go
out and suddenly like yourself - I for one most certainly know it can be a
long and difficult process. But the final result is often a *component*
of attractiveness!!
>I've seen several cases where a *physical* change wasn't necessary.
I've seen MANY! But a physical change is only an example. I
know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing
that I can rely on my body and my health helps. Sometimes, but not
always. Sometimes doing something else that I feel is unique and that
I like about myself helps (e.g. I'll start a new knitting project!!)
But not always! FINDING those reasons to like oneself, and then using
them *can be* important to self-esteem maintenance.
The point is, there are no absolutes; there is no formula
that can be applied with success to all people!! All I meant was that
in general, I have found that people with positive self-images and
who **in general** are happy with who they are, tend to be happier
AND this **tends to** reflect in MCTAS *. Liking yourself is *one*
aspect of attractiveness over which one DOES have a measure of control!
(Is it my imagination or is this subject kinda boring? DON'T answer that,
please!!!!)
-Noemi
* (Matters Concerning The {Appropriate, Alternate, Attractive} Sex)
[Many thanks to the 30-some-odd people who replied to my naive question:
What exactly IS an MOTAS?]
--
Walt Haas
> Noemi Berry
I heartily agree. I've found for a number of years that regular workouts
have a psychological effect which is at least as important as the physical
effect. Frequently I leave the office in a good mood to put my fist through
the CRT screen, and after a good hard workout I'm happy and relaxed again.
I'm sure this attitude change shows up in my appearance.
-- Walt Haas ...{decvax seismo ihnp4}!utah-cs!haas
Ed Hall
>you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much
>more difficult.
Look at it this way: you're the only self you'll ever have. Better get
used to it!
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you'll only be as happy--or unhappy--
as you make your mind up to be.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
Noemi Berry
Exactly.
noemi
J. Eric Roskos
"Jeff the Brown Scumbag"'s comments on how to be more attractive, says:
> I know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing
> that I can rely on my body and my health helps.
(This is only one example of several such comments on the subject).
--------
My, my! Philosophies of the "me" generation. Whatever happened to the old
traditional way, to go out there and do good deeds? That way, you may also
be attractive because you are a nice person.
Of course, you could take the subliminal advice of the popular family of
me-oriented [women's] magazines you see at the checkout counter in the grocery
store, and wear blue-green contact lenses...
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Gel guvf nznmvat rkcrevzrag! Gnxr n znfxvat gncr ebyy vagb
n qnex ebbz. Jnvg sbe lbhe rlrf gb nqwhfg. Chyy bss fbzr
bs gur znfxvat gncr. Jngpu pybfryl juvyr qbvat fb.
Frank Silbermann
>
>Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better
>looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. (There are many
>self-help books to help you do that).
>
>I used to work with a guy who many of us felt was less than attractive.
>He often bragged about his good looks! He honestly felt he was a perfect 10.
>His dates were usually models, beauty pageant winners, etc.
One excellent book on becoming "better looking" through change in attitude
is INNER LOOKS published by Symphony Press. I don't remember the address
of this firm; I posted it several weeks ago in an earlier article.
Symphony Press usually places ads in Psychology Today (and also in some
of the better "men's magazines"), so you can write for their catalog.
Frank Silbermann
Greg Woods
> >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking.
Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self-
confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how
does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally
lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is
the difference?
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
"...I may not be right but I've never been wrong
It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."
Jack Lindsey
>> >Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better
>> >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking.
>
>confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how
>does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally
>lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is
>the difference?
>
>--Greg
>--
One way to view conceit is as a substitute for substance. "Real"
self-confidence does not foster illusions about self, and does not
demand that external reinforcement be sought (see: humility).
Conceit is sometimes a coverup for insecurity.
"Conceit is the finest armour a man can wear"
-- Jerome K. Jerome
Then, sometimes it's not:
"I am the greatest."
-- Muhammed Ali
--
--
==================
Jack Lindsey University of Denver
UUCP ONLY: {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!ehenjum
or {boulder, cires, denelcor, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!ehenjum
[]
Nick Coosh Cuccia
>>> Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as
>>> much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics.
>>> Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive
>>> self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness".
>>
>>Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure:
>>you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much
>>more difficult.
>>
>> Jeff Brown the Scumbag
>
> OF COURSE you need a reason! Or a few. I never meant just go
>out and suddenly like yourself - I for one most certainly know it can be a
>long and difficult process. But the final result is often a *component*
>of attractiveness!!
>
>>I've seen several cases where a *physical* change wasn't necessary.
>
> I've seen MANY! But a physical change is only an example. I
>know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing
>that I can rely on my body and my health helps. Sometimes, but not
>always. Sometimes doing something else that I feel is unique and that
>I like about myself helps (e.g. I'll start a new knitting project!!)
>But not always! FINDING those reasons to like oneself, and then using
>them *can be* important to self-esteem maintenance.
>
>
I was just moping around for about six to nine months this past year,
life was just going bad, my SO had broken up with me, got laid off of
a job, one of my closest friends dies, and I live through six straight
standups in six straight weeks by six different women. Ask me who felt
like ugly-on-a-stick. The only thing that I had going for me during
this time period was my involvement with the Glee Club on campus. It
took exactly one weekend out of Berkeley--my first in over a year--
to get me out of the tailspin. Took off to Yosemite with about 30 Glee
Clubbers and was very different afterwards. The big thing for me was
hiking from Yosemite Lodge to the top of Upper Yosemite Falls and back
in late winter in just under four hours round trip. Did lots of BSing
and singing, etc. My attitude changed after just three days.
If possible, try something different if you feel you're in a rut and
feel bad about yourself. My definition of 'attractive' puts more
weight on a person's feelings about themselves and others than on
appearance. People who are stressed make me feel stressed, people
who are mellow make me mellow...
On to another semi-random question. Several friends of mine and I
seem to have the same 'disease', so to speak. All of us are attracted
to women of approximately the same ethnic background: all of our recent
SOs (except for my most recent) have been Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
or southeast Asian. All of us are pretty exclusive in our tastes, and
have been so for longer than we have known each other. Anybody else
out there shar similar tastes in MOTAS?
Col. G. L. Sicherman
> > I know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing
> > that I can rely on my body and my health helps.
>
> My, my! Philosophies of the "me" generation. Whatever happened to the old
> traditional way, to go out there and do good deeds? That way, you may also
> be attractive because you are a nice person.
> Of course, you could ... wear blue-green contact lenses...
Going out and doing good deeds doesn't make anybody nice. (But meeting people
that way sometimes does.)
I've known a lot of do-gooders who were incurable nerds. People who act
out of duty are usually bad company.
"Raised in a bottle, and stayed there too."
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
Michael M. Sykora
>(J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>
>My, my! Philosophies of the "me" generation. Whatever happened to the old
>traditional way, to go out there and do good deeds?
Good for who?
A Beaver
> I've found for a number of years that regular workouts
> have a psychological effect which is at least as important as the physical
> effect. Frequently I leave the office in a good mood to put my fist through
> the CRT screen, and after a good hard workout I'm happy and relaxed again.
> I'm sure this attitude change shows up in my appearance.
>
> -- Walt Haas ...{decvax seismo ihnp4}!utah-cs!haas
A few years ago, when in the midst of a deeply depressing situation,
(my son had been killed in an auto accident) I took up riding a ten
speed to work. I had heard that stressfull situations make your body
retain toxins and that physical exertion helps to 'wash' them from
your system. The 5 mile ride helped to clear my head, so that work was
a lot more pleasent. The 5 miles home helped to get me ready to relax
at home. I recommend it highly.
Annadiana Beaver
A Beaver@Tektronix
"Relationships, who's got the time? Anymore."
"There's no time for anything. Anymore."
"This is the future."--the Android Sisters--
jo...@ism780.uucp
>> If a woman is attracted to your looks ... (blah blah blah)
>>
>> But if she is attracted to your wealth, power, fame ... (blah blah blah)
You don't *really* think that all women are looking for those
things, do you? That would be a pretty insulting
generalization to make about the female population.
>> As a final note, always remember: A good character,a loving personality
>> and other INTERNAL attributes will earn you a long and happy relationship,
>> provided you have the EXTERNAL attributes to attract the woman
>> in the first place.
Some women get off on internals from the start and don't
need to be attracted by externals. Admittedly, this doesn't
work well if you're trying to start a life-long relationship by
finding a nice stranger in a crowded bar (I *still* don't
understand how that works), but it's great for relationships
that evolve from friendships with people you already know.
I find that I feel much more physical attraction to the guys
who have what it takes on the inside than I do to the ones who
have what it takes on the outside.
Conversely, I like for men to like me for what's on the
inside. Whenever a guy sees me walking down the street or
sitting on a bus stop and immediately decides that he wants to
"get to know" me, I get *very* suspicious (and annoyed).
I enjoy good looks and status as much as anybody, but if
they're not there I don't miss them one bit. And they're
certainly not the things that I look for first. And if that's
ALL that's there, I don't give 'em a second thought.
******************************************************************************
Joan "the VMS group is moving mountains" Alexander
Interactive Systems,
Santa Monica, CA
I love male (excuse me, I meant to say "mail")
cca!ima!ism780!alexander
decvax!vortex!ism780!alexander
"Opinions expressed herein were not mine originally, but
were forced on me at gunpoint by the Interactive Systems
Corporation"
mar...@ism780.uucp
******************************************************************************
< Joan "the VMS group is moving mountains" Alexander
< Interactive Systems,
< Santa Monica, CA
< "Opinions expressed herein were not mine originally, but
< were forced on me at gunpoint by the Interactive Systems
< Corporation"
Of course you must realize that ANYONE is working with VMS must
like internals as opposed to externals, seeing out the externals
of VMS are likely to scare off most people :-) :-) :-)
From the other side of Interactive Systems.
s.e.badian
> >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking.
And Greg responds with:
>Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self-
>confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how
>does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally
>lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is
>the difference?
As I see it the difference between conceit and self-confidence
is attitude. If you around telling people how wonderful you are, they
are not going to appreciate it. If you are competent and self-assured,
people will see that you have confidence in yourself, and you won't
have to tell them how wonderful you are. You don't want to hit people
over the head with your self-confidence. Walking around saying "I'm
just such a wonderful person" is not going to win you friends nor
impress anyone. If you attack life with enthusiasm, and resist
the human temptation to crawl in a hole and avoid all setbacks, the
people around you will react to your behavior positively. You could
say you're giving them a subliminal message that you are self-confident
and a fun person.
Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
Moira Mallison
>>
>> Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self-
>>confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how
>>does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally
>>lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is
>>the difference?
>>
>>--Greg
The difference, as I see it, is where one's attention is. A self-confident
person is secure enough to share the attention with others, perhaps to the
extent that the majority of the time it is off of him/her. A conceited
person is actually quite insecure, and therefore requires the attention
to bolster confidence.
Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram
Ms. Sunny Kirsten
(either stick to the subject, or edit the subject line, otherwise you waste the
time of people who *thought* they were interested in reading your message) ]
It seems to me that what people *really* look for in another person is
themselves.
That can be interpreted two ways:
You look for another person who knows who they are.
Successful relationships depend on truthfullness of representation.
You look for yourself in another.
"Opposites attract", I hear you say. There is that aspect, and
certainly the differences contribute to the all important growth
of each individual, but it's the sameness which keeps the two
together at all.
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
Ed Hall
> Piscataway, NJ, writes:
>
> > I suspect that is one reason that I care less about "classically
> > good-looking" and more about "nice eyes" and overall "happy
> > aspect"....
>
> But, interestingly, perhaps this is just the female-equivalent of the male
> body-evaluation method of judging attractiveness. I recall reading somewhere
> one of those numerous surveys, asking what men vs. women find attractive;
> whereas men listed various body parts at the top of the list, women listed
> "eyes". (Not that eyes are necessarily not more effective in evaluating some
> other personal aspect than are the other items listed...)
> --
> Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
There is a bit of a difference, here. There is a great deal of richness
in the different ways people use their eyes. A lot of their personality
shows in them--often things about them it takes a long time to get in
contact with any other way. If I had to boil down my impressions of a
person's personality to a single physical feature, it would be my
impression of their eyes.
So I doubt that the attractiveness of someone's eyes is just another
method of ``body-evaluation''--as you mention, they are effective in
``evaluating some other personal aspect.''
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
Mark Terribile
> occurred in the past 10 years or so. In the popular psychology, the idea
> that self-esteem is beneficial to one's well-being has led to a pervasive
> attitude of self-centeredness. You see books with titles like "Looking Out
> for #1", "How to be Your Own Best Friend," etc.
...
> However, people when they are born are inherently self-centered, and it is
> only through their socialization that they come to view others as important
...
> I think the current attitude tends to ... to a certain extent, simply serves
> to promote self-centeredness. I'm not sure that is good.
On those same ``self-improvement'' shelves is a somewhat older book ... a
book called ``How To Win Friends and Influence People.'' It's a remarkable
exercise in well-spoken common sense, and good reading by any standard. If you
think you don't need it, you probably do. It's one of those books that
everyone should read at least once. It's quick enough to read that it won't
waste your time, and it's not boring. For those that don't know, the author
is Dale Carnagie, and the book's main theme is that you have to give the
people you deal with the things they need most, and doing that requires
respect and consideration, properly followed.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
A Beaver
> Regardless of your negative impressions of the so-called "me generation,"
> a person with low self-esteem seems less attractive than he/she could be. I
> know this from personal experience, from both sides of the problem. Most
> recently, I've spent the last 20 or so months constantly trying to convince
> somebody (both verbally and otherwise) that she really is a desirable person,
> but I'm *still* not sure she believes it. It's *extremely* frustrating at
> times, especially since she would be perfect if not for this problem (-:).
> --
> - joel
My personal experience has showed me that sometimes professional
assistence is the key. It is a LOT more difficult for an untrained
person to assits a friend in such feats. Overcoming many years of
reenforcement is no easy task. (took me 3 years, once a week)
~l
/l
/5l\
/ 0l \
Annadiana Beaver / 5 l \
A Beaver@Tektronix /____l___\
,,,,\__,,,_/,,,,
"I'd rather be sailing" wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
A Beaver
> Rather, my complaint is with a subtle shift in personal philosophy that has
> occurred in the past 10 years or so. In the popular psychology, the idea
> that self-esteem is beneficial to one's well-being has led to a pervasive
> attitude of self-centeredness. You see books with titles like "Looking Out
> for #1", "How to be Your Own Best Friend," etc.
> Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
>
Have you taken a look at who spends money on those books?
Some of those people that lost themselves in the well-being of others
at an early point in life. Maybe you are overlooking the fact that
there is a delicate balance which EACH of us has to locate for
ourselves.
Granted, it would be great if they could just teach you in school
with everything else. But we have to realize, there is a REASON that
grown people have problems with self-esteem.
Annadiana Beaver
A Bever@Tektronix
Michael M. Sykora
>/* m...@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) / 8:29 pm May 24, 1985 */
> . . . For those that don't know, the author
>is Dale Carnagie, and the book's main theme is that you have to give the
>people you deal with the things they need most, and doing that requires
>respect and consideration, properly followed.
Sounds reasonable. But then why on earth is it called "How to Win Friends
and Influence People?" Friends are not WON, and if you're out to influence
people then you've got more than friendship on your mind.
> from Mole End Mark Terribile
Mike Sykora
Michael M. Sykora
> Doesn't have to be ALL women. Just enough so that a man
>NOT having these attributes will have reduced chances to attract
>the women of HIS choice.
But if these women are mainly after men with these attributes, why
ARE they the women of his choice?
> Nor do internals help you much among strangers at a party,
>or on vacation, or at a church social, or in class, etc.
It seems to me that one may be more likely to meet someone with common
interests in a class, or at a church social, etc., depending, of course,
on why one is attending such activities.
>> but it's great for relationships
>> that evolve from friendships with people you already know.
> Yes, but how many friends does the average person have?
>Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
>reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
>good friendships.
> What should I do if none of my old friends is suitable
>to become a lover? Get new friends? What if I'm already satified
>with the platonic friends I have now?
I think the original poster was mainly referring to introductions to
potential SOs thru friends you already have.
Mike Sykora
J. Eric Roskos
You know, the kind people were supposed to do before Martin Luther realized
that the just shall live by faith, and posted all that stuff on the door
at the University Chapel at Wittenberg. Now that he did that, I guess they
can just go and do it to meet MOTAS instead.
It is also a good way to tell people who are "cynical" from those who are
"not cynical". I have many other tricks such as these, and when I am
very old, I will write them in a book with a title like "Essays from a
Shadowed Place". Until then, you will just have to look hard to laugh at
my strange jokes and parodies of human vanity, lest you take it all too
serious, eventhough it is not nohow permanent.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"V'q engure or n puvgva, jerfgyrq va n frrq bhgjbea,
Naq urne byq Rora, jvaqvat n fvyrag ubea."
J. Eric Roskos
> that evolve from friendships with people you already know.
This is a wise philosophy, and a safe, risk-free one. Yet... friendships
are relationships too; and whereas you don't understand the obvious
puzzle of how people meet in crowded bars, I don't understand this one,
that people make this strange distinction. Maybe it is the result of
having too many friends? Then, some friendships would not be relationships;
being the friendships with the people you would rather not be good friends.
But I don't think those are friendships at all; they are mere acquaintances.
J. Eric Roskos
>theme is that you have to give the people you deal with the things they
>need most, and doing that requires respect and consideration, properly
>followed.
No. I am not an environment generator, out to make you happy, so I can
"win" your friendship, or "influence" you. I definitely have many things I
believe strongly, some of which you may vehemently differ with. Now, I have
good friends who differ strongly with my opinions; but they are strong
people, who do not "need most" anything from me. Others of my friends are
not so strong; the are what Ms. Mallison called "insecure" a few articles
back, maybe; yet perhaps I do give them something they need most, but it is
what I believe in, and what I am, not what I perceive they need.
Miss Manners makes this point well, in fact. You must distinguish between
your business relationships and your personal ones. I think Mr Carnegie's
book is a quite good one for a salesman; I do not like it as something a
friend of mine would base his or her behavior upon, however.
Why do these self-help books exist? Why do you need a formula for living?
Only a handful of books in the self-help and psychology section of the book-
store are really worth reading; and some of those, I am not so sure of.
"The Farther Reaches of Human Nature," I have mentioned before. "Love and
Limerance," by Dorothy Tennov, is also a good book. Sometimes I think the
book "Pairing," by some person named Bach, is also good, though it takes a
certain frame of mind and state of life for it to say much. Oh, how could
I forget "Walden".
After you have done that, you can read literature; especially Southern
Literature, if you ask my opinion; and when you find you enjoy fiction that
is not set in outer space and dealing with alien races, then you will begin
to feel good about humanity, your fellow humankind. [Avoid books with
titles printed in metallic ink.]
Rob Bernardo
have mentioned not to confuse self-centeredness, conceit, etc. with
self-assuredness, self-esteem, etc. Some netters have treated traits of
of SELF-ATTITTUDE as if the bad ones (e.g. conceit) were just extreme
cases of the good ones (e.g. self-assuredness). After thinking aobut
it awhile, I think there is a QUALITATIVE distinction. What follows
is probably a third bullshit and a third confusion,
but I maybe on the right track ...
At first there appears to be a merely QUANTITATIVE distinction, depending
upon the degree that one mentally attends to oneself. One extreme
is the person who UNDERattends to her or himself, and appears
overly humble, self-effacing, etc. The other extreme is the person who
OVERattends to him or herself, and is inconsiderate, condescending,
insensitive, unawares of others, etc. And in the middle is the balanced
person who attend to him or herself and to others in a well-proportioned
way. This is the approach I think many recent articles on this topic have
adopted.
I suspect that there are QUALITATIVELY different attitudes between
that last extreme and other positions on the scale.
In fact, I can think of two distinct sort of attitudes that could
lead someone to be in the OVERLY-SELF-ATTENTIVE extreme:
1. One is an attitude that quite consciously devalues many or all
other people. This often leads to inconsideration and
rudeness by COMMISSION.
2. The other is a preoccupation with oneself. This preoccupation
drives out the ability to be sensitive to others and to be aware
of how one is coming across. This often leads to inconsideration by
OMISSION.
It is ironic that sometimes the latter trait, preoccupation with oneself,
can accompany LOW self-esteem; I see in myself often that preoccupation
with myself sometimes results in low self-esteem, and other times in
inflated self-esteem.
--
Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California
{nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
_^__
~/ \_.\
_ ~/ \_\
~/ \_________~/
~/ /\ /\
_/ \ / \
_/ \ _/ \
\ /
Diana Spalding
> > need to be attracted by externals. Admittedly, this doesn't
> > work well if you're trying to start a life-long relationship by
> > finding a nice stranger in a crowded bar (I *still* don't
> > understand how that works),
>
> or on vacation, or at a church social, or in class, etc.
>
But internals *DO* help (quite a bit). Personally I find I'm not physically
attracted to someone unless I am first intellectually attracted to them.
> > but it's great for relationships
> > that evolve from friendships with people you already know.
>
> Yes, but how many friends does the average person have?
> Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
> reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
> good friendships.
> What should I do if none of my old friends is suitable
> to become a lover? Get new friends? What if I'm already satified
> with the platonic friends I have now?
>
> Frank Silbermann
Who said anything about relying on *old* friendships to grow into romantic
attachments ? Why not start out a potential romantic relationship as a
friendship with a *new* friend and see where it goes from there!
---------------------- -------------------------------
Diana Spalding {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!djs
NBI Inc., Boulder, CO (303) 444-5710
"We are the ones to make a brighter day, so let's start giving . . . "
jo...@ism780.uucp
>> = me
> = Frank Silberman
>> You don't *really* think that all women are looking for those
>> things, do you? That would be a pretty insulting
>> generalization to make about the female population.
> Doesn't have to be ALL women. Just enough so that a man
> NOT having these attributes will have reduced chances to attract
> the women of HIS choice.
OK, you're right. If a man is looking for the kind of woman
who values those things, it does become important. I think
that wanting those thing is a bit shallow, but that's only my
opinion. It's personal choice. Good luck.
>> Some women get off on internals from the start and don't
>> need to be attracted by externals. Admittedly, this doesn't
>> work well if you're trying to start a life-long relationship by
>> finding a nice stranger in a crowded bar (I *still* don't
>> understand how that works),
> Nor do internals help you much among strangers at a party,
> or on vacation, or at a church social, or in class, etc.
What do you mean they don't? "Strangers" don't stay strange
once you've talked to them for a while. At school and work and
church and social events I inevitably find myself making
conversation with lots of different people. Some of them I
start to like, some of them I don't. Some of them start to
like me, some of them don't.
> Yes, but how many friends does the average person have?
> Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
> reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
> good friendships.
> What should I do if none of my old friends is suitable
> to become a lover? Get new friends? What if I'm already satified
> with the platonic friends I have now?
I may have been unclear, but I wasn't saying that one's
sweetheart had to be someone you grew up with or anything (I
don't think I ever said "*old* friend"). A person may even go
out with the intention of looking for a sweetheart, but instead
of making an initial choice based on looks, s/he might just get
to know lots of people (indiscriminately?) and then make a
choice after s/he has gathered a bit more information about
what makes the person tick. Side effect: you wind up with a
lot of friends.
> Compare your physical attraction for these two groups:
>
> A) Those who have what it takes ONLY on the inside.
> B) Those who have what it takes on BOTH inside AND outside.
I've never thought of these as two groups, but I've thought
about this and I don't think that my feelings are stronger or
weaker for either group. (I didn't actually make a
point-by-point evaluation of all the men I know, but I did sit
for a few minutes and think about your question).
>> I enjoy good looks and status as much as anybody,
>> but if they're not there I don't miss them one bit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And they're certainly not the things that I look for first.
>> And if that's ALL that's there, I don't give 'em a second thought.
> That sounds like a good rule for choosing friends.
> But when you say that you don't mind physical ugliness,
> low social status, and poor economic prospects in the man (men?)
> you sleep with, I don't believe you.
(Maybe I'm a rarity among women :-) ).
jo...@ism780.uucp
> That sounds like a good rule for choosing friends.
> But when you say that you don't mind physical ugliness,
> low social status, and poor economic prospects in the man (men?)
> you sleep with, I don't believe you.
The system that I was using to connect to the system where
the notes are went down while I was editing my previous
response (I'm really surprised that the part I had written got
sent off anyway). The only other thing that I was going to
mention was that I don't sleep around (this wasn't really
relevant to our discussion, but guys that I know read this and
I don't want them to get the wrong ideas :-) ).
I also wanted to add my signature lines (wouldn't want anyone else to
take the blame for writing this stuff).
******************************************************************************
Joan "the VMS group is moving mountains" Alexander
Interactive Systems,
Santa Monica, CA
cca!ima!ism780!alexander
decvax!vortex!ism780!alexander
Frank Silbermann
> Miss Manners makes this point well, in fact. You must distinguish
> between your business relationships and your personal ones.
> I think Mr Carnegie's book is a quite good one for a salesman;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I do not like it as something a friend of mine would base
> his or her behavior upon, however.
>
> Why do these self-help books exist?
You answered your own question before you asked it.
Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman.
Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time.
> Why do you need a formula for living?
Everyone has formulas for living. The lucky ones discovered them
for themselves or their parents taught them at an early age.
Others grew up without understanding the unspoken social customs
of our society. These self-help books give the latter group
a second chance.
Frank Silbermann
Col. G. L. Sicherman
> Most
> recently, I've spent the last 20 or so months constantly trying to convince
> somebody (both verbally and otherwise) that she really is a desirable person,
> but I'm *still* not sure she believes it.
Statements with "is" are meaningless. More specifically, you can hardly
prove an abstraction like "she is a desirable (to the general public) person."
You can easily prove that _you_ desire her.
Vicious Oyster
>> Most
>> recently, I've spent the last 20 or so months constantly trying to convince
>> somebody (both verbally and otherwise) that she really is a desirable person,
>
>prove an abstraction like "she is a desirable (to the general public) person."
>You can easily prove that _you_ desire her.
>--
>Col. G. L. Sicherman
>...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
Oh... I see you must have editted the "to the general public" out of my
message in your reply. And incidentally, if, as you state, statements with
"is" are meaningless, then statements with "are" must be meaningless too,
since both "is" and "are" are different forms of the same word. Hence your
statement proves itself false.
"There, I've run rings around you logically."
--
- j "vo" p
{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
mar...@ism780.uucp
/* Written 1:51 pm May 26, 1985 by fsks@unc in ISM780:net.singles */
In article <ISM780.33100013> jo...@ISM780.UUCP (Joan Alexander) writes:
>>> If a woman is attracted to your looks ... (blah blah blah)
>>>
>>> But if she is attracted to your wealth, power, fame ... (blah blah blah)
> You don't *really* think that all women are looking for those
> things, do you? That would be a pretty insulting
> generalization to make about the female population.
Let's see, what do i look for in a MOTAS. I have a check list of
qualifications and at the top are height (over 6'), looks, ambition, wealth,
power, fame, ............ etc.
> Some women get off on internals from the start and don't
> need to be attracted by externals. Admittedly, this doesn't
> work well if you're trying to start a life-long relationship by
> finding a nice stranger in a crowded bar (I *still* don't
> understand how that works),
Personality, hmmmmmm, maybe i should add that to the list... nah.
Michael M. Sykora
>That's good if your friends are extroverted and have lots of other friends,
>and if they understand your taste. Lot's of big "ifs".
>
> Frank Silbermann
Ifs is all we got. There are no guarantees.
J. Eric Roskos
>Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman.
>Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time.
Yes, but nowadays people are too MUCH salesmen. I see this conducting job
interviews. People think that if they are just good enough salesmen, their
personal attributes will be overlooked. This is not true.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf
na' gur rryf!" [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]
Ed Hall
> can accompany LOW self-esteem; I see in myself often that preoccupation
> with myself sometimes results in low self-esteem, and other times in
> inflated self-esteem.
> --
> Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California
I don't find this very ironic. In either case, you're keeping your
awareness focused internally, allowing incongruencies to form bewteen
what you see of yourself and what other people see of you.
An extreme case of this sort of thing is Anorexia Nervosa, where
the focus on this internal self-concept is so strong that even what
a mirror shows is questioned.
Some (unsolicited) advice (note that I am using the generic ``you''
in the following, speaking mostly to people who get preoccupied
with themselves--people like me, or like Rob says he is):
Something that might be more effective is to watch your effect on
other people. I don't mean concern yourself with what other people
think of you--that is nothing but more self-obsession. I'm talking
about non-critical listening, and honest reactions to what you hear.
It's amazing how much more relaxed and how much better you feel about
yourself once your focus shifts outside yourself. (And though I said
``watch your effect on others,'' the ultimate result is that you'll
end up interacting person-to-person, shifting the focus even more
outside yourself.)
Just a thought...
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
W. Rance Cleaveland
> confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how
> does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally
> lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is
> the difference?
>
feelings of others while a conceited person cannot.
Rance
Cloyd Goodrum
>In article <7...@gloria.UUCP> col...@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
>>> recently, I've spent the last 20 or so months constantly trying to convince
>>> somebody (both verbally and otherwise) that she really is a desirable person,
>>
the clearest possible way. So I must rescue him from the Vicious oyster.
>>More specifically, you can hardly
>>prove an abstraction like "she is a desirable (to the general public) person."
>>You can easily prove that _you_ desire her.
>>--
>>Col. G. L. Sicherman
>>...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
>
>message in your reply. And incidentally, if, as you state, statements with
>"is" are meaningless, then statements with "are" must be meaningless too,
>since both "is" and "are" are different forms of the same word. Hence your
>statement proves itself false.
>
> "There, I've run rings around you logically."
>--
> - j "vo" p
>
>{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
I think what the Colonel was trying to say is that it is meaningless
to say "she is a desirable person" without having some idea of who she is
desirable *to*. Since people are as diverse as they are, practically everyone
is desirable to some people and undesirable to others.
Cloyd Goodrum III
Greg Noel
>Let's see, what do i look for in a MOTAS. I have a check list of
>qualifications and at the top are height (over 6'), looks, ambition, wealth,
>power, fame, ............ etc.
Hey, somebody else who likes tall women! My three particular addictions
are height (6' would be great, but anything over 5'10" is fine), long hair,
and red hair. And the only woman I've ever met with all three attributes
(she was 6'1" with \brilliant/ red hair down to her waist) was married to
a guy who was 6'6", 245 pounds, and jealous. All I could do was watch from
a respectful distance and try not to trip over my tongue...... Sigh.
--
-- Greg Noel, NCR Torrey Pines Gr...@ncr-tp.UUCP or Gr...@nosc.ARPA
Greg Skinner
>Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
>reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
>good friendships.
I have this same problem. I have some good female friends, but I don't want
to start romantic attachments with them, because the breakup might destroy
the friendship. I value the friendships I have and I wouldn't want to see
them go away. Also, sometimes I might want to become romantically involved
with might not want to be romantically involved with me, that leads to hurt
feelings on their part, since they didn't want to hurt me, which leads to all
sorts of guilt and confusion and .... so that's why I'm concerned about
starting a romantic relationship with a good friend. (I hope I don't get too
flamed for this -- it's only natural to want to keep the friends you have --
I've heard it said that you never lose a true friend but I wouldn't want to
introduce guilt feelings into a friendship nevertheless.)
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes we wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm...@harvard.arpa
Frank Silbermann
>>Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time.
In article <peora.1007> j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>Yes, but nowadays people are too MUCH salesmen. I see this conducting
>job interviews. People think that if they are just good enough salesmen,
>their personal attributes will be overlooked. This is not true.
Sheesh! Employers are never satisfied, are they?
First they said they wanted college graduates.
So the youth all went to college.
Then they said they wanted graduates of useful disciplines, not liberal arts.
So people shifted from liberal arts to business and engineering.
Then the employers said that technical skills are not enough. You must
sell yourself.
So the students practiced salesmenship.
Now they say salesmanship is not enough. They must have a good character
and good communications skills (isn't that the purpose of a liberal arts
program?).
Next thing, employers are going to demand students who are able to
separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional.
Smart, but not intellectual. Prudent, but not afraid to take risks.
Social and well-rounded, with many hobbies, but hard working and dedicated
to the job. A family-oriented man who will put his job ahead of his family.
Feet on the ground, no head in the clouds, but a regualar church-goer.
Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become.
Frank Silbermann
ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS?
Chris Andersen
> >Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
> >reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
> >good friendships.
>
> I have this same problem. I have some good female friends, but I don't want
> to start romantic attachments with them, because the breakup might destroy
> the friendship. I value the friendships I have and I wouldn't want to see
> them go away. Also, sometimes I might want to become romantically involved
> with might not want to be romantically involved with me, that leads to hurt
> feelings on their part, since they didn't want to hurt me, which leads to all
> sorts of guilt and confusion and .... so that's why I'm concerned about
> starting a romantic relationship with a good friend.
Another problem which I have observed is that when two members of
a group friends have a relationship, and then break, it almost inevitably
destroys the group of friends along with it. This is because the others
in the group are forced to take sides. If the are seen hanging out with
one of the two people, it is assumed by the others that you are on that
persons side. Word of this comes back to the other person involved, and
when you then try to talk to him/her that person is naturally suspicious
of your actions.
In High School I saw this process of fission occur several times.
The result being that out of 20+ people I knew in school, only 3 are still
friends.
Life's a bummer.
Chris Andersen
Snoopy
>> I have some good female friends, but I don't want
>> to start romantic attachments with them, because the breakup might destroy
>> the friendship.
>a group friends have a relationship, and then break, it almost inevitably
>destroys the group of friends along with it. This is because the others
>in the group are forced to take sides.
>The result being that out of 20+ people I knew in school, only 3 are still
>friends.
[ the preceding edited for brevity ]
Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
A lot of people on the net seem to feel this way, so can someone
explain it?
Snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
(new machine, not to worry, mako will forward)
rich
>>>Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman.
>>>Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time.
>
> sell yourself.
>So the students practiced salesmenship.
>
>
>separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional.
>Smart, but not intellectual. Prudent, but not afraid to take risks.
>Social and well-rounded, with many hobbies, but hard working and dedicated
>to the job. A family-oriented man who will put his job ahead of his family.
>Feet on the ground, no head in the clouds, but a regualar church-goer.
>
>Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become.
>
> Frank Silbermann
> ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS?
Damn yuppies.
-rich
Dave Martindale
>
>
>First they said they wanted college graduates.
>So the youth all went to college.
>
>Then they said they wanted graduates of useful disciplines, not liberal arts.
>So people shifted from liberal arts to business and engineering.
>
>Then the employers said that technical skills are not enough. You must
> sell yourself.
>So the students practiced salesmenship.
>
>Now they say salesmanship is not enough. They must have a good character
> and good communications skills (isn't that the purpose of a liberal arts
> program?).
>
>Next thing, employers are going to demand students who are able to
>separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional.
>
>Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become.
I believe that the interviewer quoted was not saying that "salesmanship
is not enough" but that he disliked interviewees selling themselves.
In general, all employers are not going to want exactly the same qualities,
and students simply cannot conform to a single standard and thus become
the ideal employeee - some of the qualities desired ARE contradictory.
One partial solution is to figure out what you ARE good at, and find an
employer who values that. Or try to make yourself into what "most employers
seem to want", and accept the fact that some employers disagree.
Personally, I wouldn't make a very good salesman, but the qualities that
would make me a poor salesman probably make me better-suited to the
work that I do want to do.
Lady Godiva
>
>Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
>What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
>not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
>a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
>the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
>
>A lot of people on the net seem to feel this way, so can someone
>explain it?
>
>Snoopy
I think that part of the problem is that a lot of things happen in a
relationship that can make things a little tense after a breakup. I had
one friendship that developed into a relationship which broke up after
about a year. I was deceived by the person while we were going out, and
I now find it impossible to trust him anymore. He was/is angry at me for
breaking up with him and ever since has done little but try to hurt me
through various ways ever since. He treats all his (other) friends
wonderfully for the most part, but is really hurtful to me. I have tried
to be as nice as possible (really I have) but I must admit that towards
the end of the school year I was really fed up. Hopefully over the
summer things will even out, but I'm not holding my breath. I've gotten
to the point where I'm really pretty bitter over all of it, something
which of course does not help the situation at all. Basically as it now
stands I'm willing to forgive him if he stops treating me the way he did
all last semester, but if things continue in the same way when he
returns than I may just end the friendship. On the brighter side of
things this is the only relationship where I've had this happen. All of
the others have ended with both of us still very good friends. I'm not
against going out with a friend again, but I think that I might be more
careful next time which friend I pick...
elizabeth
(Lady Godiva)
J. Eric Roskos
too much salesmen.]
Now, wait a minute! First of all, you should not attribute my incidental
observation to the people I work for. My opinion of how interviewees
present themselves has nothing to do with my technical evaluation of them.
However, I have a good bit of experience in this area. Before I came here,
I used to teach college students, where the same problem existed: people
would not study adequately, then would make low grades and come to me
afterwards to try to convince me they deserved a higher grade. (Some even
had the audacity to say "I had a big fraternity party the day before the
test.") If they would put half the effort into learning the material that
they put into convincing me that it didn't matter that they didn't, they
would have done better in the first place.
If someone comes to me, filled with salesmanship, tells me he's a great
person, has written compilers and designed an operating system and you name
it, and then I ask him a simple technical question and he can't answer it
(but he can make some really impressive explanations of why he can't!),
what am I to think?
One of the big problems is the people are always trying to find out what
employers want. Well, employers want people who do a good job at their work.
Now, looking at your list of complaints, actually I will agree with you about
the importance of a liberal arts education (after all, I got my BS degree from
Davidson College, which at the time taught only ONE CS-type course, before
going to an engineering school for 5 years).
It's just this "magic formula" approach to life that's the problem again.
If you want to do well at something, well, then, you have to work at it; there
is not a magic formula that will make it work for you.
---------
MAJOR DISCLAIMER!: the above opinions, and the one Frank was commenting on
originally, reflect my opinions only; they do not reflect those of Perkin-
Elmer, nor do they necessarily reflect its personnel requirements. [I think
Frank perhaps misinterpreted my phrase "personal attributes" to mean
"personality", which I did not mean; I meant "properties of the person
himself," i.e., technical competence, knowledge of his or her area of
expertise, etc., as opposed to the ones he or she attempted to project
through salesmanship.] (But, I imagine good salesmanship would be very
desirable in the SALES dept., don't you?)
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Erny vfgf qba'g hfr Xbqnpuebzr."
Greg Woods
> Another problem which I have observed is that when two members of
> a group friends have a relationship, and then break, it almost inevitably
> destroys the group of friends along with it. This is because the others
> in the group are forced to take sides. If the are seen hanging out with
> one of the two people, it is assumed by the others that you are on that
> persons side.
> of your actions.
Are you talking about a relationship or a war here? Why does one have to
"take sides"? I have never noticed this happening during any of *my*
breakups. The one thing that I *have* noticed is that people that I met
*through her* tend to drop out of my social circle after a breakup, but
I don't think this is quite what you were describing. In this case it's more
because she was about all that I had in common with these people in the first
place. I *have* seen this "taking sides" occur, I only write this to point
out that it does not *have* to be that way. I find it very easy to be friends
with both parties after a breakup. You just have to be willing to listen
to the concerns of whichever person you happen to be talking to at the moment,
and avoid going into judgment of either the person you are talking with or
their XSO.
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
mms...@acf4.uucp
>Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
>What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
>not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
>a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
>the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
I don't understand it either. I have this problem with a former SO.
I'd really like to be friends with her (not necessarily anything more),
but she won't even speak to me. It's very frustrating because without
knowing why she has this attitude, which ostensibly was prompted by
things I said and did, I don't feel like I've learned much and I'm
likely to go on making the same mistakes.
Mike Sykora
no...@rochester.uucp
>What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
>not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
>a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
>the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
>
>A lot of people on the net seem to feel this way, so can someone
>explain it?
There are many reasons it might be difficult to be friends with
an XSO. One might be the nature of the breakup. Or the causes that led
to deterioration of the romantic relationship also had an adverse effect
on the friendship. Some people get over someone by intentionally hating
them so that loving them won't hurt so much when the relationship is doomed.
Relationships are different couple to couple, hence breakups are different
couple to couple.
Many friendships CAN recover a bitter breakup, but then, many can't.
Some can't even recover a smooth breakup (IS there such a thing?). It all
depends on the individuals and the combination of the individuals and the
circumstances surrounding the breakup. Relationships are not simple enough
things that one can say for all of them that a friendship "should" remain.
-friends with some; indifferent to others
UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi
ARPA: no...@rochester.arpa
The Polymath
>
>a group friends have a relationship, and then break, it almost inevitably
>destroys the group of friends along with it. This is because the others
>
> In High School I saw this process of fission occur several times.
I think the key words here are _High School_. These are the sort of
actions and attitudes I'd expect of adolescents, not adults.
I've watched a number of good friends break up over the years and never
felt compelled to take sides. I remain on good terms with most of them.
One time I was travelling through Europe with a couple who were in the
final stages of breaking up (why is another story). The three of us remain
friends to this day, though things did get a little tense and awkward at
the time. Our assorted mutual friends are also all on good terms.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?"
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning."
Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
d...@tove.uucp
>
>Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
>What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
>not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
>a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
>the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
First of all, in a romantic relationship, it's not always clear how strong
the friendship is. Such things tend to get muddied a bit by other elements
such as sexual attraction. If the friendship isn't strong to begin with, it
may be harder to keep it going afterwards.
Second, when I have broken up with a girlfriend I have usually felt a
conflicted combination of pain, anger, resentment, and lingering romantic
attraction to her. The anger and resentment would tempt me to withdraw in
an attempt to "get back" at her; and the pain and the lingering attraction
would also tempt me to withdraw as a form of self-protection. If you
consider that these kinds of things tend to occur for BOTH parties when a
couple breaks up, it's not so surprising that maintaining a friendship is
difficult.
The time I found it easiest to remain friends with a former girlfriend was
in a situation where we had been close friends before we became romantically
involved, and the feelings of friendship were always stronger than the
romantic feelings. Thus maintaining the friendship was important to both of
us. We had both decided simultaneously that we wanted to end the
relationship, so neither of us felt "abandoned" by the other. In addition,
I was getting interested in someone else, so I didn't mope around and harbor
resentment as much as I might have otherwise.
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
buch...@agrigene.uucp
> Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
> reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
> good friendships.
Concerning "risks": NOTHING VENTURED, NOTHING GAINED! I've found that, for
myself, that line of reasoning was just a excuss to be alone and avoid a
relationship. Talk it over, and if the friend is positive about it, GO FOR IT!
(My experience was that I have lost, either perminently or at least for a
while, some friendships but it was worth the risk.)
--
Barry Buchbinder
Agrigenetics Corp.
5649 E. Buckeye Rd.
Madison, WI 53716 USA
(608)221-5000
{seismo,ihnp4,harpo}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
buch...@agrigene.uucp
> What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
> not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
> a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
> the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
Lots of break-ups are unfriendly; some are friendly. For myself it depends
on the particulars of myself and the SO, and the particulars of the break-up.
(e.g. the presence of 3rd parties, and especially sex therewith.) In any case,
break-up often lead to feelings of hurt, rejection, "lets get back together"
(very messy), jealosy, "please let me string myself along" (also messy), etc.,
which are not condusive to an immediate transition to "Let's spend a lot of time
together platonically". Sometimes its best to just leave it alone.
J. Eric Roskos
>>> the friendship.
>
>> Another problem which I have observed is that when two members of
>>a group friends have a relationship, and then break, it almost inevitably
>>destroys the group of friends along with it. This is because the others
>>in the group are forced to take sides.
>
Well, for one thing, the situation described in the ">>" extract above was
based on an observation of high school students. It is fairly characteristic
of people of high-school age that they have less of a personal identity than
a group identity; thus the need to "take sides".
This property persists, to varying degrees, in older people, depending on
the extent of their personal and emotional development.
I think that it is definitely possible to "hurt friendships with romance;"
the problem is the fear of doing so inhibiting the development of new
relationships. People who are afraid of this situation tend, in my
observation, to have troubled and shallow "romantic" relationships, in
general, since the only people they will allow such relationships to
develop with are those to whom they are not close as friends. But such an
approach runs the considerable risk of hurting the romance with non-
friendship (or plain incompatibility), although people seem to be more
accustomed to painful ends of romantic relationships than of the
"friendship" sort. Although I have also known people who had a fear of the
painful end of romantic relationships, and so would not risk those,
either...
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
W. Rance Cleaveland
> What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
> not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup. If you like
> a person as a friend, then add loving them as an SO, why should
> the liking-them-as-a-friend go away if they don't work out as an SO?
>
> A lot of people on the net seem to feel this way, so can someone
> explain it?
>
> Snoopy
Having had XSO's which have remained friends and XSO's which haven't, I
think I can explain it this way. First of all, I don't think love is
something which you "add on" to liking someone; it is rather an inten-
sification of same, and it tends to leave you emotionally vulnerable to
the other person. No matter what the tone of the breakup, if you are in
fact emotionally vulnerable to another person the tension caused by the
breakup can prompt you to retreat from the other person as an act of self-
preservation. How far you retreat of course determines how your relation-
ship stands after the split; some people can retreat part-way and resume
the friendship as it stood before romance entered into the picture, while
others must retreat all the way and "blow off" the other person. I think
that more people fit into the latter category than the former, if only
because it's hard to remember how you felt about someone before you became
emotionally attached and therefore "safer" not to have anything to do with
them.
Quite a mess, eh?
Rance Cleaveland
Frank Silbermann
(heavily edited)
>[The referenced article comments on my suggesting that people nowadays are
>too much salesmen.]
>
>If someone comes to me, filled with salesmanship, tells me he's a great
>person, has written compilers and designed an operating system and you name
>it, and then I ask him a simple technical question and he can't answer it
>(but he can make some really impressive explanations of why he can't!),
>what am I to think?
>
>One of the big problems is the people are always trying to find out what
>employers want. Well, employers want people who do a good job at their work.
>
>It's just this "magic formula" approach to life that's the problem again.
>If you want to do well at something, well, then, you have to work at it; there
>is not a magic formula that will make it work for you.
>
>I imagine good salesmanship would be very desirable in the SALES dept.,
>don't you?
I think we agree 100% on the facts, but disagree on which ones to emphasize.
Obviously, salemanship without technical competence in a technical job
is useless. But my point is that it is much better to have both,
than technical competence alone.
It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept them.
It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas.
This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success
versus rotting in a dead-end position.
I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves,
who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers,
but under-utilized by their companies.
Frank Silbermann
Chris Andersen
I guess I should qualify the previous by saying that most of my experiences
of this happening occured in high school (and once in college so far).
I think it tends to happen more in a closely nit group. Not in a situation
where the intersection of person A's friends and person B's friends is nil
or next to nil. Basically, a breakup (and a bad one especially) in a group
as tight nit as a family can be lethal to the group.
It is possible for a person to avoid having to choose sides, but this can
result in members of either fissioned group looking on his/her actions as
suspicious (almost as if they were a spy for "the other side").
> --Greg
Chris Andersen
Snoopy
>>/* sei...@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) / 12:50 pm Jun 9, 1985 */
>>Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
>I don't understand it either. I have this problem with a former SO.
>I'd really like to be friends with her (not necessarily anything more),
>but she won't even speak to me. It's very frustrating because without
>knowing why she has this attitude, which ostensibly was prompted by
>things I said and did, I don't feel like I've learned much and I'm
>likely to go on making the same mistakes.
>
> Mike Sykora
Ah, another great problem we can dissect (but probably not solve)
on usenet! The infamous "I don't wish to see you anymore, but I'm
not going to tell you why." routine. Hmmm, perhaps this is related.
If you are mad at your soon-to-be-XSO, you may not be in the mood
to explain why. If you are still on good terms, but simply realise
that "it wasn't meant to be", you may be more inclined to discuss
*why* "it wasn't meant to be". -sigh-
Snoopy's axiom of the week: "Communication is everything."
(Can anyone recommend a good telepathy school?)
Snoopy
tektronix!hammer!seifert
"V.2.2.2.2.2... this is progress?" <konk> I could have had a v8!
J. Shapiro
>
> >Why is everyone so afraid of hurting friendships with romance?
> >What percentage of breakups are unfriendly? I can't imagine
> >not remaining friends with an SO after a breakup.
Subjectively, I have observed that if one or both of the people
involved in the relationship is posessive, it is far less likely that
when the relationship ends the couple will remain friends. Where a
friendship, which did not imply any form of "posession" (used loosely)
was able to function, a closer relationship begins in our sad society
to take on some aspects of posession. Posessive people often find it
hard to reconcile the notion that something or someone isn't theirs
anymore.
I have made an effort in my own relationships to recall that there
sometimes comes a time when it is time to move on. People grow in
different directions. This isn't necessarily a bad reflection on the
people (quite the contrary!). My girlfriend (off and on - 3 years)
commented recently that I am one of the least posessive people she knows.
I take that as a complement. The first time we broke up we both had a
lot of growing to do, and pain made communication very difficult. We
will always have growing up to do, but with all of the pain, I have no
closer friend and no better partner.
In any case, it seems to work. Of all the people I have gone out
with in the past 4 years, only one is not now a friend. The reasons
for that are outside of my control - a false rumor was attributed to
me for which she has never forgiven me, though it wasn't me - to this
day I think about that lost friendship with a great deal of
bitterness.
Jonathan S. Shapiro
Haverford College
Gregg Mackenzie
> > Relying on old friendships to grow into romantic attachments
> > reduces the selection pool too much. And risks destroying
> > good friendships.
>
> Concerning "risks": NOTHING VENTURED, NOTHING GAINED! I've found that, for
"He who expecteth nuthin', ain' gonna be deceived!" -- Jerry Reed
Gregg Mackenzie
denelcor!gmack
Michael M. Sykora
>But my point is that it is much better to have both,
>than technical competence alone.
> Frank Silbermann
I think you are overlooking an important consideration. For a lot of
technical people (and others), acquiring salesmanship entails a change
of personality. I don't believe one can be a salesman on the job and
then not bring it home with you. One might well begin to apply salesmanship
in one's personal life. Is this not too great a cost to pay for career
success?
Mike Sykora
Dana S. Nau
> ... For a lot of
>of personality. I don't believe one can be a salesman on the job and
>then not bring it home with you. One might well begin to apply salesmanship
>in one's personal life. Is this not too great a cost to pay for career
>success?
>
> Mike Sykora
When I was in college, I knew a guy who took a summer job selling books
door-to-door. His girlfriend broke up with him not long after, for the
reason that every time he talked to her (and to anyone else, for that
matter!), he came across like he was trying to sell her something.
I knew several other people who were affected in similar ways.
Mark V. Shaney
technical insight that is dear to me. Because of this, I have no
advice for someone in that situation!
Joining Mensa was something I did him one better. I wore a dress skirt
a day for one week. I did him one better. I wore a dress skirt a day
for a 2 year relationship. I'm wondering if anyone else out there has
ever experienced this phenomena, whether it was actually your
contention that this is true for me.
I suppose it depends how you felt about someone before you became
emotionally attached and therefore "safer" - not to sporting events,
but to opera.
I lost 90 lbs a few months during my "flower child" days in high school
where, due to her high academic standings, was shunned by many of the
tube. The experience really screwed them up -- if not their heads,
their knees. Why does one have to be the prime measurement of
manhood. No?
He was a scrawny, spastic nerd in high school, and I fantasized about
such a thing. It all depends on the sidelines, listening to what makes
the rest of the guys around her - suddenly finds herself in a situation
where guys are asking them out!? But this can result in members of
either the person of your dreams (in a larger number of males to
females studying the field of engineering), the ratio of males to
females is somewhere in the past. And, per the other person.
I find it hard to reconcile the notion that something or someone isn't
theirs anymore. I have a date with the woman. Subjectively, I have
also acted in this weekend.
_-_-_-_-Mark
Frank Silbermann
>>But my point is that it is much better to have both technical competence
>>and salesmanship, than technical competence alone.
In article <acf4.1560082> mms...@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
>I think you are overlooking an important consideration. For a lot of
>technical people (and others), acquiring salesmanship entails a change
>of personality. I don't believe one can be a salesman on the job and
>then not bring it home with you. One might well begin to apply salesmanship
>in one's personal life. Is this not too great a cost to pay for career
>success?
I wonder how much supersalesman Steven Jobs is suffering.
Seriously, salesmanship is not a personality, it's a skill
-- the verbal analog of pursuasive writing.
Frank Silbermann
mcc...@ucla-cs.uucp
>
>I think the key words here are _High School_. These are the sort of
>actions and attitudes I'd expect of adolescents, not adults.
I think we'd all be shocked by the childish behavior we engage in.
There is, in my opinion, nothing special about high school. It's just a bit
more obvious by comparison (once you leave).
>I've watched a number of good friends break up over the years and never
>felt compelled to take sides. I remain on good terms with most of them.
This is really tricky to do, if it doesn't come naturally. A relationship
in a circle of my friends broke up rather badly three years or so ago, and
to my knowledge, the male is on speaking terms with about 3 out of the 15
of us, while the female worked hard at being on good terms with everyone.
Generally, easy-going types stay on good terms regardless of maturity, while
high-strung types do not.
Naturally, immaturity is a cause, but I don't think it's the only one.
>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
(UCLA and I can't decide when to have lunch. For this reason, we have jointly
appointed a gorilla with a vocabulary of under 500 words to speak for us.)
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mcc...@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mcc...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes <my mistake>
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
Peter Barbee
>in one's personal life. Is this not too great a cost to pay for career
>success?
>
> Mike Sykora
What do you mean by salesmanship Mike? As I think about the people I know
who are successful (or *really* successful) in sales I think of people
who are very good at making me feel good, especially they project that they
care about me more than they care about themselves. Other qualities are
attention to details, good listeners, remembering facts trivial to them but
important to me, etc., etc. In other words many of the nicest friends I
have earn their living in sales - I don't see what the big cost is.
If you are refering to brown-nosing, or to sales techniques used by the
stereotyped used car salesman I agree with your point.
Peter B
Chuq Von Rospach
>Amazing what AI can accomplish these days! Though I must admit that I am
>surprised that anyone would bother to use such high power machinery for
>this newsgroup. Case in point - the following article. This almost seems
>like a real article, but it defies analysis! Did anyone see this in a
>comprehensible format?
No, it analyzes quite well, which is how it was generated. There was a
column or two in Scientific American a while back on computer generated
text, and some fine person at Bell Labs implemented the algorithms for the
'benefit' of the net. Actually, the algorithm is quite nice and well worth
tracking down. The results are better left giggled at in private.
>In article <38...@alice.UUCP> m...@alice.UUCP (Mark V. Shaney) writes:
>>I seem to be important. For me, it would have agreed with the
>>technical insight that is dear to me. Because of this, I have no
>>advice for someone in that situation!
On second thought, will the owners of Mr. Shaney (and I use that term
loosely, as a User and not a Program) redirect him at net.flame? Something
tells me it would improve the intelligence of the stuff there....
chuq
--
:From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chu...@decwrl.ARPA
The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and
then, of course, there was the money...
Ed Hall
> It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas.
> This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success
> versus rotting in a dead-end position.
>
> I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves,
> who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers,
> but under-utilized by their companies.
>
> Frank Silbermann
I disagree. I want technical people who are competent and who are
reasonably articulate, but if they need to ``sell themselves'' in order
to be appreciated and utilized, I'm failing in my job as a manager. And
if they have a salesman-like mentality, I'll likely not hire them no
matter how technically competent they are.
Many times I've seen people work hard to sell an idea, but ignore the
ideas of the rest of the team--and thus create a tremendous problem by
this ``salesmanship''. I want to discuss possibilities and choose based
on facts, not on the size of the ego of whoever has the idea. An idea
should succeed or fail on its merits; although I'm certain that good
ideas are often passed over because they aren't well-presented, this is
a failure in trying to *express* them, not *sell* them.
Perhaps what you've noticed, Frank, is the inability of some ``techies''
to communicate what they are thinking in a reasonable and articulate
way. Or it is a failure of managment to deal with its people in a
way that allows them best to express their ideas--I've certainly seen
this happen a lot as well. But I wouldn't call these things a lack of
the employee's ``salemanship''.
To tie this in with net.singles: there is a big difference between
liking yourself and expressing your thoughts well (something other
people generally find attractive), and having ``salesmanship''. The
latter has its place--I don't intend to demean sales people--but it has
no place in relationships, and although superficially attractive, it
wears out pretty fast.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann:
>> It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept
>> them. It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas.
>> This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success
>> versus rotting in a dead-end position.
>>
>> I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves,
>> who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers,
>> but under-utilized by their companies.
In article <randvax.2565> edh...@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>I disagree. I want technical people who are competent and who are
>reasonably articulate, but if they need to ``sell themselves'' in order
>to be appreciated and utilized, I'm failing in my job as a manager. And
>if they have a salesman-like mentality, I'll likely not hire them no
>matter how technically competent they are.
>
>Perhaps what you've noticed, Frank, is the inability of some ``techies''
>to communicate what they are thinking in a reasonable and articulate
>way. Or it is a failure of managment to deal with its people in a
>way that allows them best to express their ideas--I've certainly seen
>this happen a lot as well. But I wouldn't call these things a lack of
>the employee's ``salemanship''.
Salesmanship includes the ability to communicate what you are thinking
in a reasonable and articulate way. If you cannot do this, then you
cannot be a good salesman.
>Many times I've seen people work hard to sell an idea, but ignore the
>ideas of the rest of the team--and thus create a tremendous problem by
>this ``salesmanship''. I want to discuss possibilities and choose based
>on facts, not on the size of the ego of whoever has the idea. An idea
>should succeed or fail on its merits; although I'm certain that good
>ideas are often passed over because they aren't well-presented, this is
>a failure in trying to *express* them, not *sell* them.
I think your point is that, with the ability to communicate in a reasonable
and articulate way, the other parts of salesmanship (persuading people on
an emotional level) are unnecessary and, in your position, counter-productive.
Certainly, you know your own situation best, but let's look at it from
another perspective.
As long as the programmer continues to receive promotions, he will eventually
reach a position where his boss will not be interested in the technical details.
The boss will rate him largely on a subjective basis (e.g. does he look
professional and responsible? Does he wear a Brooks Brothers suit?).
This is where salesmanship comes into play. A data-processing systems-
analyst must be able to gain the confidence of the less technical users.
An EDP consultant must impress managers who may not know what is happening
on a technical level, but who control the budget.
People who ignore salesmanship do so at their own peril. Note that
Univac and Burroughs lost out to IBM for this very reason, even though
both were companies were more technically advanced.
>To tie this in with net.singles: there is a big difference between
>liking yourself and expressing your thoughts well (something other
>people generally find attractive), and having ``salesmanship''. The
>latter has its place--I don't intend to demean sales people--but it has
>no place in relationships, and although superficially attractive, it
>wears out pretty fast.
I think that is only partially true. Salesmanship is the ability to
present your case in the way that will best appeal to your "prospect".
To borrow terminology from the Myers-Briggs personality studies, your
spouse may be a "feeler" rather than a "thinker". In that case, it
would be more considerate of you to deal with her on an emotional level,
rather than always using "cold, unappealing logic."
Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship,
i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative
people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but
they often do well at starting relationships. Perhaps it's best
to be flexible -- using salesmanship while relationships are still
superficial, and then growing out of that mode as the relationship
becomes closer. Or would such flexibility be too much for one person
to master?
Frank Silbermann
Eli Haddad
women. I thought that they liked a romantic, which I am. Apparently they
do not. Perhaps they are immature and get worried if they go to bed with
somebody that is in love with them. The girls here say I am naive in
thinking that love still can happen between two people. I say that is
bullshit. If there are any women on the net close to my age please reply
to this. If you disagree with me say so. If you agree leave a way that I
can contact you.
J. Eric Roskos
> i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative
> people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but
> they often do well at starting relationships.
Frank, I will agree with you for a change! This has always seemed a sad
thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a
reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many
times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily
"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches,"
eventhough often those were the ones I (personally) thought were the less-
desirable people (due to their tendency to distort things in a way intended
to look the best). (And have also observed that in the long run many times
things did not work out all that well, for that reason.)
However, maybe this is just the old "what does he/she see in her/him"
question. I must confess that I have an extreme dislike for people who
don't tell me the truth about things, and this is largely why I perceived
the above-mentioned people as "less desirable". At the same time I have
seen that many people seem to exist in a frame of reference in which this
distortion-of-reality is expected, even desirable, and although this is
a frame of reference I don't understand, perhaps it is no less reasonable
than mine...
Just part of the infinite human variability, I guess.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
Frank Silbermann
In article <tove.258> d...@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes:
>
>When I was a student, I had a summer job one summer as a door-to-door
>salesman. As part of the job, we memorized various sales talks,
>read "inspirational literature", and were trained to keep ourselves
>"pumped up" and enthusiastic no matter what happened. The facade
>looked pretty fakey to me, but it WORKED--those who were most successful
>at the job were those who used it the most. I found myself using it too,
>in order to get the job done. But I didn't like it: some of the things
>we were supposed to do were pretty manipulative, and the company was
>manipulating me in the same way. Thus, even though I was doing reasonably
>well at the job, I quit after about a month.
Imagine you are a WOMAN just starting college. Like so many others,
you are new at the dorm, and would like to make new friends.
A sophmore from the men's floor approaches you to ask if you want to
join him and his friends on a trip to the nearby beach. Below are
two possible approaches he might use:
1) Hi there! Are you new here? I don't remember you from last year.
... (What's your major, etc.) ...
A bunch of my friends are heading down to the beach. Wanna come?
Come on! We'll have a great time! Where's your room? I'll
help you carry your stuff.
2) (Slouch over to her like you are recovering from mononucleosis).
Hello. Were you here last year? I might not have met you then;
I don't make friends to easily. Want to come with me to the beach?
It won't be too boring, because they'll be alot of other people there.
Which approach do you think would be more effective? My point is
that you SHOULD try to keep yourself "pumped up" and enthusiastic
when trying to meet women, just as you should when selling.
Frank Silbermann
P.S. Please note:
This doesn't mean that I approve of what that company wanted you to do
that summer. I disapprove, not because of the sales tactics, but because
I don't believe in their product. If this is the company I'm thinking of,
they specialize in selling overpriced books to ignorant poor people who
are unable to recognize a rip-off. Of course, this criticism wouldn't apply
to your attempts to meet women. After all, you're quite a guy (aren't you?),
and you'd be doing the women a favor by introducing yourself!
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann:
>> Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship,
>> i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative
>> people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but
>> they often do well at starting relationships.
J. Eric Roskos:
>Frank, I will agree with you for a change! This has always seemed a sad
>thing for me;
You're probably not the only one who feels that agreeing with me is a sad thing.
:-)
J. Eric Roskos:
> that having known many male-type people very well, and a
>reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many
>times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily
>"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches,"
>even though often those were the ones I thought were the less-desirable
>people due to their tendency to distort things in a way intended to look
>the best. And have also observed that in the long run many times things
>did not work out all that well, for that reason.
>
>However, maybe this is just the old "what does he/she see in her/him"
>question. I must confess that I have an extreme dislike for people who
>don't tell me the truth about things, and this is largely why I perceived
>the above-mentioned people as "less desirable". At the same time I have
>seen that many people seem to exist in a frame of reference in which this
>distortion-of-reality is expected, even desirable, and although this is
>a frame of reference I don't understand, perhaps it is no less reasonable
>than mine...
Can it be an honest difference is style? Do you see the wine glass as
half empty or half full?
As I grew up, I automatically adopted my parents' style, which they
got from their parents, which ultimately derived from Eastern European
superstitions about the evil eye. For those of you who haven't yet
read Leo Rosten's "The Joys of Yiddish", let me explain. The evil eye
is a devil whose job it is to make trouble for people on Earth (perhaps
to test their faith in God, as Satan did with Job). If ever you admit that
things are going too well, or that your are too satisfied or comfortable,
the evil eye might hear you and realize that he has forgotten to torment
you lately. If that happens, the good times are over.
To counteract this, Jews try to complain as much as possible.
Complain about your ill health; complain about how terrible your wife is;
complain about your political leaders; complain about anything and everything.
Doing so will fool the evil eye, by making him think he has caused enough
trouble for you already, so he might go away and leave you alone.
Gentiles that I grew up with in Palatka Florida didn't understand this
attitude. Oddly, they found being around me to be unhealthy and depressing.
They preferred a more Protestant attitude like Rev. Norman Vincent Peal's
"The Power of Positive Thinking." I'll give an example of the use of this
philosphy in sports. If you go into a match expecting to lose, then you
WILL lose. If you expect to win, or at least if you believe that you have
a good chance of winning, then you may well win, even if the opposition
has a reputation of USUALLY playing better than you do.
That's why at the beginning of baseball season, so many team managers
tell the sportswriters that they expect to win the pennent this year.
Though most of them will end up with quite undistinguished seasons.
Let's get back to social relations. If you tell a woman or yourself,
that you're just looking for an easy lay, that's all you'll get,
if you get anything at all. But if you tell her that you respect her,
that this is no common fling, that she really means something to you,
well who knows? MAYBE such a relationship WILL grow, after all!
If not, well, you tried!
Positive thinking doesn't come easily to me, but I'm working on it!
Frank Silbermann
Michael M. Sykora
>Which approach do you think would be more effective? My point is
>that you SHOULD try to keep yourself "pumped up" and enthusiastic
>when trying to meet women, just as you should when selling.
Pumped up and enthusiastic don't necessarily go together. I think
a relaxed and enthusiastic approach works best.
Also, it's easy to get enthusiatic when trying to meet women, but
enthusiatic about products you're selling?
> Frank Silbermann
Mike Sykora
Dana S. Nau
>
>... My point is
>that you SHOULD try to keep yourself "pumped up" and enthusiastic
>when trying to meet women, just as you should when selling.
I think there's a difference between being genuinely enthusiastic and the
kind of facade those door-to-door salesmen used. The latter was pretty
fakey.
Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
> Frank Silbermann:
>
> As I grew up, I automatically adopted my parents' style, which they
> got from their parents, which ultimately derived from Eastern European
> things are going too well, or that your are too satisfied or comfortable,
> the evil eye might hear you and realize that he has forgotten to torment
> you lately. If that happens, the good times are over.
>
> attitude. Oddly, they found being around me to be unhealthy and depressing.
> They preferred a more Protestant attitude like Rev. Norman Vincent Peal's
> "The Power of Positive Thinking."
>
> that you're just looking for an easy lay, that's all you'll get,
> if you get anything at all. But if you tell her that you respect her,
> that this is no common fling, that she really means something to you,
> well who knows? MAYBE such a relationship WILL grow, after all!
> If not, well, you tried!
>
Well, Frank, maybe the best thing to do is to tell her
that, and then complain to your friends about how she
doesn't like you and it's not going to work out! :-)
A Funky Little Jewish Princess,
Pooh
po...@ut-sally.ARPA po...@purdue-ecn-cb.ARPA
ut-sally!pooh pur-ee!pooh
Roly-poly fish heads are never seen drinking cappuccino
in Italian restaurants with Oriental women. . .
J. Eric Roskos
article, and glad I was on a 19200 baud terminal instead of my 1200 baud Mac,
I must admit I sympathize some with this "evil eye" notion. I think it
may be more of an Eastern European tradition than just a Yiddish one, since
my Eastern European ancestors apparently had the same idea, and they are
all Lutherans.
However, I don't see what this has to do with my original observation. Let
me explain it more by an anecdote.
Back when I was much younger, I believed there were things to be "learned"
from "wiser" people about social interactions, since I was always basically
a shy person and never felt very socially polished. I had a friend who also
had this idea, and was always trying to advise me. He had many female
friends, so I tended to believe him at the time.
Now, one day, I met a person in a sandwich shop named Alison. I thought
Alison was the greatest thing since sliced bread, because she seemed just
like me, somehow. Well, I wanted to tell her this, "Hi, I think you are
the greatest thing since sliced bread," etc., (well, not quite that way),
but this friend of mine always advised me "No, you mustn't do it that way!
Such honesty never works!" Instead, he proposed the sort of approaches
towards social interaction which you are often proposing here.
Well, being a shy person back then, I actually tried neither, and instead
one day after many tries just merely gave her a flower. Eventually I
discovered that she didn't like the sort of people who acted the way you
are describing. On the other hand, I discovered that most of the female
friends of this friend of mine didn't like the sort of people who were
all honest and ingenuous the way I was; they felt I didn't have this "class"
you have referred to.
This led me to realize the existence of these different viewpoints on
social interaction, which I have described in response to your comments.
I suspect that is why some people agree with you and some don't. I tend
not to agree with you many times, but then, I suspect many people like
the sort of socially polished image you seem to advocate, whereas I myself
are more like a painting by Andrew Wyeth. That's just the nature of human
variability, as I said before.
[What became of Alison? you are wondering. Well, she graduated and moved
away.]
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Gur ArgArjf... n qlvat pbzzhavpngvba sbez?
Tim Bessie
>thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a
>reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many
>times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily
>"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches,"
What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of
these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before?
- Tim Bessie
Charles Forsythe
>What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of
>these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before?
>- Tim Bessie
Watch TV comercials for an hour, Tim. If you still think male-types and
female-types are outdated, passe', or a moot point, then you are merely
being naive (no offense intended). Despite "equality" of the sexes,
types exist and even some of the most ardent feminists I know support
different types for men a women, just not the ones we have today.
--
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
No one knows about it."
-Rev. Wang Zeep
Frank Silbermann
In article <peora.1257> j...@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>Well, Frank, I was a little annoyed that you reposted my entire article.
Sorry about that. I just couldn't figure out which part to cut out.
I'll try harder from now on.
>I must admit I sympathize some with this "evil eye" notion. I think it
>may be more of an Eastern European tradition than just a Yiddish one,
>since my Eastern European ancestors apparently had the same idea,
>and they are all Lutherans. However, I don't see what this has to do
>with my original observation.
You were bothered by the way a salesman tends to emphasize the advantages
of his product, while ignoring the disadvantages and weaknesses. Similarly,
some people are good at putting on a good front, making themselves seem better
than they really are. I believe you expressed annoyance at the success
of this (dishonest?) tactic.
I have no sympathy for the guy who just plain _lies_ about his accomplishments.
But I believe you should try to emphasize your most attractive qualities
and distract attention from your faults as much as possible. These will
come out soon enough anyway. But why expose them to someone before
that person has first had a chance to appreciate your good points?
To connect this to the evil-eye business -- The person afraid of the evil
eye will dwell his disatisfactions. He is overly modest, feeling that
pride not only goeth before a fall, but actually causeth the fall.
Focusing so much attention on his faults, such a person begins to create
a self-image based on them. This makes it doubly difficult to improve,
since any new behavior will be seen as phony and unnatural.
The Positive-Thinker, on the other hand, focuses his attention upon what is
good (or improving) about himself, not because he is completely satisfied
with what he sees, but because a positive self-image is necessary for proper
growth.
In other words, if you tell yourself that you are stupid, you will lose
confidence in yourself, and the resulting anxiety will cause you to make
stupid mistakes, thus confirming your self-image. If you tell yourself
that you are intelligent, you will not be afraid to use your mind.
The result is that, effectively, you will conduct your life in a more
intelligent fashion. Similarly, if you tell yourself that you're a really
sexy guy (in your own way), you will begin to behave in a manner consistent
with your self-image. The result is that you WILL become sexier.
So, when a person you know well seems to be promoting himself in a biased
way, he is not necessarily dishonest. He may be merely focusing on
the bright side. And let's face it. A person who often puts himself down
in public is likely to do the same thing to his spouse, children,
friends or employer, once he begins to strongly identify with them.
Who wants to have someone like that around?
Frank Silbermann
Frank Silbermann
> I thought Alison was the greatest thing since sliced bread,
> because she seemed just like me, somehow. Well, I wanted
> to tell her this, "Hi, I think you are the greatest thing
> since sliced bread," etc., (well, not quite that way),
> but this friend of mine always advised me "No, you mustn't
> do it that way! Such honesty never works!"
Honesty is not the point. A woman KNOWS she is only mortal.
If you come on like you're in love and you hardly even know her,
well, what is she to think of you? Isn't this the essence of
puppy-dogism?
> Instead, he proposed the sort of approaches towards social
> interaction which you are often proposing here.
I am not exactly sure what you mean. I certainly don't advocate
trying to copy some Las Vegas lounge lizard. Perhaps you're reading
things into my postings that I didn't intend.
> Well, being a shy person back then, I actually tried neither,
> and instead one day after many tries just merely gave her a flower.
Excellent idea! In fact, Eric Weber suggested this in one of his books
(I'm not sure if it was _How_to_Pick_Up_Girls_, he wrote several books).
> Eventually I discovered that she didn't like the sort of people
> who acted the way you are describing. On the other hand,
> I discovered that most of the female friends of this friend of mine
> didn't like the sort of people who were all honest and ingenuous
> the way I was; they felt I didn't have this "class" you referred to.
> This led me to realize ... [that different people respond to different
> approaches].
In her book, _The_Truth_About_What_Women_Want_in_Men_, Susan Eno explains
why some women pair up with tough, superficial, uncaring men.
She says that women really want a man who is both --
1) tough, confident, and competitive, so he can protect her
from the world,
and
2) sensitive, vulnerable and caring so she can feel loved.
It is difficult to find men capable of relating to people in BOTH modes.
So, some women compromise and choose a man who is only 1), while others
settle for a man who is only 2). But, what women really want is someone
who can go either way, depending upon what is appropriate to the situation.
I, myself, am a 2), trying to tack on some 1) characteristics.
I was discussing women a couple of weeks ago with a friend of mine.
This guy is a "Big Man On Campus". He'll be president of the senior class
this fall. He's active in student government and the fraternity system.
He complained that, while he knows hundreds of women, and dates frequently,
he still feels lonely. He doesn't know how to switch modes from being
the jolly "master of ceremonies" type, so his relationships, though pleasant,
lack intimacy. Because of his religious beliefs, casual sex is out of
the question.
I responded told him that I have the reverse problem, namely, how
do I get women to notice me in the first place? Once I know the
woman cares for me a little, I can take it from there.
We agreed that, together, the two of us would make one hell of a guy!
Frank Silbermann
J. Eric Roskos
>>thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a
>>reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many
>>times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily
>>"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches,"
>
>these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before?
Glad you asked. I use these two terms because if I don't, a handful of
people come out of strange corners and begin uttering hostile rhetoric
because whatever word I happened to use offended them. The above terms
connote nothing at all except a person's sex, and are based on a strange
grammatical flaw in Niklaus Wirth's original book on Pascal.
Having argued endlessly with Sophie Quigley, Beth@sphinx, and Jeannette
Zobjbeck (sp.) over words for female people, and other irritating aspects
of English syntax, I would rather not use any words at all than get into
another argument.
Disclaimer follows.
(However, I have decided Jeannette is basically a nice person. This doesn't
absolve the former two, however, who have never yet said anything to me
that wasn't purely vindictive. However, it seems pointless to endlessly
argue over mere words, especially when there is so little time remaining
to do so... I hope you won't start another such argument in here; there
is enough in net.flame already.)
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
[But, at the time you are reading this, probably in New Jersey]