This post is a decent first approximation. But it is important to remember that even successful communication is almost always occurring on more than just one of these levels at once.
Personally I find it useful to think of communication as having spontaneous layers of information which may include things like asserting social context, acquiring knowledge, reinforcing beliefs, practicing skills, indicating and detecting levels of sexual interest, and even play. And by spontaneous layers, I mean that we each contribute to the scope of a conversation, and then those contributions become discerned as patterns (whether intended or not).
Then iterate this process a few times, with my attempting to perceive and affect your patterns and you attempting to perceive and affect mine. Add some habitual or built-in (it’s extremely hard to tell the difference) models in the mind to start from and it seems simple (to me) how something as complex and variable as human communication can arise.
My peeve (well, one of many) is when I can’t distinguish between flirty non-rejection rejections, vs. real, “you’re inches from being a stalker” rejections, and there are severe penalties for erring in either directions.
And I suspect that if it were possible to distinguish them, that would be a bad thing (for women).
ETA: Downmod justification requested for this and my follow-up comment.
One of the more important functions of the social level interaction is signaling mating interest (not saying this doesn’t happen on other levels too, but generally playful flirting is the first movement of the mating dance).
Refusing to play is choosing to lose some opportunities. A lot of people think that because they are not yet good at a particular game (or even understand that it is a game) that the game has no value for them. Other people are inclined to try and figure out how to play it better.
I’m not categorically refusing to play; I’m just saying that after a particular move (flirty mock-rejection) on the part of the other player, there are no moves I can make with best-case outcomes good enough and reliable enough to outweigh the risks. Under those circumstances, it seems like the rational decision is to stop playing.
As I see it, a game you only need to win once for decades of marital bliss (plus offspring, financial stability, etc.), or lose once to land on the sex-offender registry, is not a game which should be played casually or with excessive frequency.
Well its not like you go straight from flirty mock-rejection to stalking or non-consensual sex. The worst you can do is spend more time with her after she has rejected you; and if her gentle (flirty) rejection doesn’t work she’s going to signal it more clearly.
If she’s just flirting, and I stay, I’m implicitly accepting the burden of deciphering any further ambiguous statements she might choose to make, for the duration of the relationship.
If she honestly wants nothing to do with me, but is speaking gently because she also doesn’t want to give offense, and I stay, that persistence might intimidate her into silence, which can lead to some very unpleasant outcomes indeed.
Humor, grain of truth, etc. Whoever told that joke the first time, I’m guessing, settled for a pretty girl who’d talk to them at all instead of thinking it through.
That’s fine, if you don’t mind stalker-erring genes to dominate future gene pools. (Individually, it’s probably better for you than risking legal consequences, but it’s a Hobson’s choice.)
That’s fine, if you don’t mind stalker-erring genes to dominate future gene pools. (Individually, it’s probably better for you than risking legal consequences, but it’s a Hobson’s choice.)
One of the more important functions of the social level interaction is signaling mating interest (not saying this doesn’t happen on other levels too, but generally playful flirting is the first movement of the mating dance).
Refusing to play is choosing to lose some opportunities. A lot of people think that because they are not yet good at a particular game (or even understand that it is a game) that the game has no value for them. Other people are inclined to try and figure out how to play it better.
Edit: I actually meant this as a response to Strange7.
This post is a decent first approximation. But it is important to remember that even successful communication is almost always occurring on more than just one of these levels at once.
Personally I find it useful to think of communication as having spontaneous layers of information which may include things like asserting social context, acquiring knowledge, reinforcing beliefs, practicing skills, indicating and detecting levels of sexual interest, and even play. And by spontaneous layers, I mean that we each contribute to the scope of a conversation, and then those contributions become discerned as patterns (whether intended or not).
Then iterate this process a few times, with my attempting to perceive and affect your patterns and you attempting to perceive and affect mine. Add some habitual or built-in (it’s extremely hard to tell the difference) models in the mind to start from and it seems simple (to me) how something as complex and variable as human communication can arise.
Voted up. I think a better metaphor is that of dimensions (since a conversation can easily take on several simultaneously) rather than levels.
I think you’re probably right.
My peeve (well, one of many) is when I can’t distinguish between flirty non-rejection rejections, vs. real, “you’re inches from being a stalker” rejections, and there are severe penalties for erring in either directions.
And I suspect that if it were possible to distinguish them, that would be a bad thing (for women).
ETA: Downmod justification requested for this and my follow-up comment.
My inclination in cases like that is to walk away, and go play with someone who respects me enough to say what they mean.
One of the more important functions of the social level interaction is signaling mating interest (not saying this doesn’t happen on other levels too, but generally playful flirting is the first movement of the mating dance).
Refusing to play is choosing to lose some opportunities. A lot of people think that because they are not yet good at a particular game (or even understand that it is a game) that the game has no value for them. Other people are inclined to try and figure out how to play it better.
I’m not categorically refusing to play; I’m just saying that after a particular move (flirty mock-rejection) on the part of the other player, there are no moves I can make with best-case outcomes good enough and reliable enough to outweigh the risks. Under those circumstances, it seems like the rational decision is to stop playing.
As I see it, a game you only need to win once for decades of marital bliss (plus offspring, financial stability, etc.), or lose once to land on the sex-offender registry, is not a game which should be played casually or with excessive frequency.
Well its not like you go straight from flirty mock-rejection to stalking or non-consensual sex. The worst you can do is spend more time with her after she has rejected you; and if her gentle (flirty) rejection doesn’t work she’s going to signal it more clearly.
One way or another, it sets a bad precedent.
If she’s just flirting, and I stay, I’m implicitly accepting the burden of deciphering any further ambiguous statements she might choose to make, for the duration of the relationship.
If she honestly wants nothing to do with me, but is speaking gently because she also doesn’t want to give offense, and I stay, that persistence might intimidate her into silence, which can lead to some very unpleasant outcomes indeed.
This is where I insert a joke about married life. But I don’t want to be down voted anymore. So just think up the joke yourself.
Good jokes get voted up, not down.
Yes, I actually knew this. The sad part is I thought what I wrote was a good joke. But I was wrong.
Humor, grain of truth, etc. Whoever told that joke the first time, I’m guessing, settled for a pretty girl who’d talk to them at all instead of thinking it through.
That’s fine, if you don’t mind stalker-erring genes to dominate future gene pools. (Individually, it’s probably better for you than risking legal consequences, but it’s a Hobson’s choice.)
I’ll burn that bridge when I come to it.
That’s fine, if you don’t mind stalker-erring genes to dominate future gene pools. (Individually, it’s probably better for you than risking legal consequences, but it’s a Hobson’s choice.)
One of the more important functions of the social level interaction is signaling mating interest (not saying this doesn’t happen on other levels too, but generally playful flirting is the first movement of the mating dance).
Refusing to play is choosing to lose some opportunities. A lot of people think that because they are not yet good at a particular game (or even understand that it is a game) that the game has no value for them. Other people are inclined to try and figure out how to play it better.
Edit: I actually meant this as a response to Strange7.
.