Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
Disclosure: I may not have much to say about dating and mating in general, as I have been out of the dating market for twenty years.
I do have a little experience in deliberately transforming myself (from 2000 onwards) from an introverted geek with no friends into an avid business networker with an excellent reputation. I found excellent procedural information for doing so in a book called “Why Should Extroverts Make All The Money”.
Back around that time I formulated an informal theory that made the parallel between “finding a job through the want ads” and “finding a partner through classifieds”. The gist of the theory was that in both cases there were too many incentives to lie and one would get burned quite easily. The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
Even though a website provides an avenue where people can contact each other, what do you do then?
This seems to some extent taskified, Google “speed dating”. My point isn’t that encounters on online dating sites systematically lead to speed dating, but that “society” has come up with at least one taskified version of the supposed “problem” of the first meeting with a prospective date. Speed dating wouldn’t exist if “society” were as reluctant as you say it is to taskify in matters of intimacy.
And if you do end up meeting someone, what do you do?
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Dating already involves enough rules and rituals. I’m not advocating adding any more. What I want to see is more specification of how to perform under the existing rules and constraints (e.g. the constraint of the typical desires of the people you are trying to date).
Although it’s often difficult to define in advance how to behave in a particular situation, it can sometimes be possible to codify the types of things to avoid, or to know what result your behavior needs to achieve, even if you must improvise how you get to that result.
Furthermore, on a more global level, it’s possible to taskify the problem of learning how to date. For instance, learning how to increase your attractiveness in general, or learning how to dynamically improvise in situations of uncertainty.
I’m arguing that society is blocking problem-solving on both local problems (“what do I see when I approach the attractive stranger at this party?” or “what do I need to accomplish with the first few things I say to this person?”) and global problems (“what do I need to do to develop into the kind of person who knows what to say to attractive strangers at party without even needing introspection?”).
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
What makes you think I haven’t? Yes, I haven’t really got specific about what exactly I think is lacking in conventional dating advice, though I might in the future if I consider it on topic for LessWrong. For now, my main topic has been an attitude about breaking down dating—and the process of learning how to date—into tasks to the extent that this is possible.
The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
One’s social network is important in both business and dating. Social network is a big plus, but it isn’t a prerequisite for dating.
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
I’ve considered the problem “how to get bulk practice in sexual techniques without completely exhausting my partners?” It may not satisfy the craving for affection but it may well satisfy perfectionistic tendencies.
You″re right, I have no reason to assume you haven’t done the research. (And I regret bringing up prostitution—not a helpful example.)
I suppose what I want to say really boils down to: I am unconvinced by your assertion that “society” has this attitude you’re describing, and giving more concrete details would help.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
Seconded.
To put it rather crudely, you can pay for a hole to ejaculate into, but it’s a lot harder to buy genuine sexual desire or a meaningful romantic relationship.
Not as charitable as it could be. Contrary to Morendil, I think he did have a weak reason to assume you hadn’t, and even if he didn’t, you could still simply say “I have.”
In this context, society’s enforcement mechanism is social pressure/shame. Your examples—speed dating, online dating, prostitution—are all considered more or less shameful (I know because I’ve seen the shamed body language of people admitting to them). This shows that society’s enforcement measures are working.
I don’t know what’s your reference group, but I don’t know anyone computer-literate who considers online dating shameful at all. It’s a mainstream activity, and is almost becoming the default way to find people to date.
It’s been a couple of years since I heard censure of online dating too, and I agree that it’s almost completely accepted among all the relevant people. I definitely meant it on the “less shameful” end of the spectrum.
But it’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone condemn gays, or atheists, or blacks. I try to ward myself against availability bias by reminding myself that my social group is likely to be a weird little bubble relative to the whole world. If I encountered people thinking online dating is shameful a few years ago, then I can be sure that many people still think so. I’m confident I could find them if I try.
Ok, I just tried, with a google search, and found this, from March 2009. It looks like online dating is still shameful for some people.
When I was recently considering signing up for OkCupid, I asked a few friends (actually on a forum, but a small intimate one) about their thoughts on this:
There’s still a stigma. That’s why people say “there’s no stigma anymore!”
(...which is what I was worried about. Of course, “a witty saying proves nothing”, but it makes sense—if there weren’t a stigma, there would be less need to defend it against claims that there’s still a stigma, and fewer people trying to.)
Okcupid is generally thought of as acceptable as long as you don’t take it too seriously. If anyone you know sees you on there, well, they have an account too.
(...which is a pretty good point too. So I took the plunge and joined.)
If that were the case, I’d expect to find a lot more people than I do on the main dating sites. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement to a certain demographic.
Hugh, your complaint as I understand it is that society not only doesn’t provide rituals which turn “dating and mating” into a well defined process with agreed upon rules, but in fact actively resists the demands of people who would use such rituals.
Yet when one researches the question “what are the formalized rituals of dating and mating”, well, there’s plenty of information out there. May I suggest that it would be wortwhile to yourself and to your readers to do the research, and report back on what you found, and then possibly point out any remaining large gaps?
Disclosure: I may not have much to say about dating and mating in general, as I have been out of the dating market for twenty years.
I do have a little experience in deliberately transforming myself (from 2000 onwards) from an introverted geek with no friends into an avid business networker with an excellent reputation. I found excellent procedural information for doing so in a book called “Why Should Extroverts Make All The Money”.
Back around that time I formulated an informal theory that made the parallel between “finding a job through the want ads” and “finding a partner through classifieds”. The gist of the theory was that in both cases there were too many incentives to lie and one would get burned quite easily. The strategy that relied on building up a social network looked a lot more appealing to me, at least in the professional domain.
This seems to some extent taskified, Google “speed dating”. My point isn’t that encounters on online dating sites systematically lead to speed dating, but that “society” has come up with at least one taskified version of the supposed “problem” of the first meeting with a prospective date. Speed dating wouldn’t exist if “society” were as reluctant as you say it is to taskify in matters of intimacy.
That rather depends on the specifics of your problem statement. The “problem” of sexual encounters is at least partly taskified (think “oldest profession in the world”)...
Dating already involves enough rules and rituals. I’m not advocating adding any more. What I want to see is more specification of how to perform under the existing rules and constraints (e.g. the constraint of the typical desires of the people you are trying to date).
Although it’s often difficult to define in advance how to behave in a particular situation, it can sometimes be possible to codify the types of things to avoid, or to know what result your behavior needs to achieve, even if you must improvise how you get to that result.
Furthermore, on a more global level, it’s possible to taskify the problem of learning how to date. For instance, learning how to increase your attractiveness in general, or learning how to dynamically improvise in situations of uncertainty.
I’m arguing that society is blocking problem-solving on both local problems (“what do I see when I approach the attractive stranger at this party?” or “what do I need to accomplish with the first few things I say to this person?”) and global problems (“what do I need to do to develop into the kind of person who knows what to say to attractive strangers at party without even needing introspection?”).
What makes you think I haven’t? Yes, I haven’t really got specific about what exactly I think is lacking in conventional dating advice, though I might in the future if I consider it on topic for LessWrong. For now, my main topic has been an attitude about breaking down dating—and the process of learning how to date—into tasks to the extent that this is possible.
One’s social network is important in both business and dating. Social network is a big plus, but it isn’t a prerequisite for dating.
Most people do not have a problem statement that can be solved by the oldest profession.
I’ve considered the problem “how to get bulk practice in sexual techniques without completely exhausting my partners?” It may not satisfy the craving for affection but it may well satisfy perfectionistic tendencies.
You″re right, I have no reason to assume you haven’t done the research. (And I regret bringing up prostitution—not a helpful example.)
I suppose what I want to say really boils down to: I am unconvinced by your assertion that “society” has this attitude you’re describing, and giving more concrete details would help.
Here we go: more concreteness with some examples of conventional advice vs. the perspective I am advocating.
Point taken, and I’ll try to get more concrete in the future.
Seconded.
To put it rather crudely, you can pay for a hole to ejaculate into, but it’s a lot harder to buy genuine sexual desire or a meaningful romantic relationship.
Not as charitable as it could be. Contrary to Morendil, I think he did have a weak reason to assume you hadn’t, and even if he didn’t, you could still simply say “I have.”
In this context, society’s enforcement mechanism is social pressure/shame. Your examples—speed dating, online dating, prostitution—are all considered more or less shameful (I know because I’ve seen the shamed body language of people admitting to them). This shows that society’s enforcement measures are working.
I don’t know what’s your reference group, but I don’t know anyone computer-literate who considers online dating shameful at all. It’s a mainstream activity, and is almost becoming the default way to find people to date.
It’s been a couple of years since I heard censure of online dating too, and I agree that it’s almost completely accepted among all the relevant people. I definitely meant it on the “less shameful” end of the spectrum.
But it’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone condemn gays, or atheists, or blacks. I try to ward myself against availability bias by reminding myself that my social group is likely to be a weird little bubble relative to the whole world. If I encountered people thinking online dating is shameful a few years ago, then I can be sure that many people still think so. I’m confident I could find them if I try.
Ok, I just tried, with a google search, and found this, from March 2009. It looks like online dating is still shameful for some people.
When I was recently considering signing up for OkCupid, I asked a few friends (actually on a forum, but a small intimate one) about their thoughts on this:
(...which is what I was worried about. Of course, “a witty saying proves nothing”, but it makes sense—if there weren’t a stigma, there would be less need to defend it against claims that there’s still a stigma, and fewer people trying to.)
(...which is a pretty good point too. So I took the plunge and joined.)
If that were the case, I’d expect to find a lot more people than I do on the main dating sites. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement to a certain demographic.
Where have you been looking, and what demographics are you after?
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/plentyoffish.com—huge, free, mostly 20s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/match.com—huge, paid, mostly 30s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/eharmony.com—huge, paid, marriage-oriented, mostly 40s
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/okcupid.com—not as huge, free, mostly 20s, smartest demographics of the major sites as far as I can tell
Yes, this matches my impression of the subject.