You know what I figured out, and it's not exactly a novel concept so bear with me, but it may be more true than you may think,
Most people are looking first for someone 'going somewhere' than they are for someone who is funny, interesting and 'treats them right'.
Funny and interesting help, sure. But that's cellotape. What keeps the interest is a tad more lucrative than 'personality'
Most people are looking first for someone 'going somewhere' than they are for someone who is funny, interesting and 'treats them right'.
Funny and interesting help, sure. But that's cellotape. What keeps the interest is a tad more lucrative than 'personality'
This is true more for girls than guys.. Its just cultural conditioning and not hard-wiring. We are all trying to survive the gender-biased system we were born into.
Ryan Gosling, in Blue Valentine said that he found men more romantic than women. He had his reasons. In this case, it may appear true too.
For the most part, a man's first impressions regarding a woman is about her appearance and personality.
So then, being more 'romantic' doesn't imply depth, since looks and the 1st instance of personality are nothing more than an imprint of our own ideals on an existing human being and not entirely our innate sapiosexuality.
'Is she the one?' is more about what she has than who she is.
Women, I'm gathering, not as attracted to the superficial, tend to be colder, less emotional in their assessment - Yes, really.
When I look at my own romantic failures in the distant and recent past, I see this clearly.
Some people are actually less subtle about it. Take one recent instance of mine for example.
Even before showing any interest in her that could be construed as exclusively romantic, I could tell she was already judging me by if I appeared to be a success-in-the-making or just a 30 yr old former youth trying to figure it out like everyone else (And trying to figuratively 'get into her pants'). And by this blinders-on assessment, she didn't even bother picking calls or replying messages; focused more on climbing the social ladder by association. Because honestly, who has time for you if you're not obviously going to be the next Bill Gates or at least, appear to be.
And I suppose it's as much my lack of personal branding as it is social conditioning and a harsh reality of human priorities.
Ryan Gosling, in Blue Valentine said that he found men more romantic than women. He had his reasons. In this case, it may appear true too.
For the most part, a man's first impressions regarding a woman is about her appearance and personality.
So then, being more 'romantic' doesn't imply depth, since looks and the 1st instance of personality are nothing more than an imprint of our own ideals on an existing human being and not entirely our innate sapiosexuality.
'Is she the one?' is more about what she has than who she is.
Women, I'm gathering, not as attracted to the superficial, tend to be colder, less emotional in their assessment - Yes, really.
When I look at my own romantic failures in the distant and recent past, I see this clearly.
Some people are actually less subtle about it. Take one recent instance of mine for example.
Even before showing any interest in her that could be construed as exclusively romantic, I could tell she was already judging me by if I appeared to be a success-in-the-making or just a 30 yr old former youth trying to figure it out like everyone else (And trying to figuratively 'get into her pants'). And by this blinders-on assessment, she didn't even bother picking calls or replying messages; focused more on climbing the social ladder by association. Because honestly, who has time for you if you're not obviously going to be the next Bill Gates or at least, appear to be.
And I suppose it's as much my lack of personal branding as it is social conditioning and a harsh reality of human priorities.
In the end, it may be her folly, because who knows the future for sure.
But it may simply be just good risk-assessment. As I said, who knows the future, after all?
It seems tragic of course that people aren't more interested in your depth as a personality as you think they ought to be.
Or rather, it takes mucho skill in trying to make that the key focus. Sort of like a magician keeping an engaged audience by stage craft.
Risk-assessment and the who's-who of it all, it seems, is much more natural to human choice than the 'dancing game'.
And you may even think, bitterly I might add, that women deserve to be treated as trophies by the successful men they get who have no clue about human decency; that the woman deserves her bad choice, but this assessment is neither here nor there, because as I did mention, you are bitter, and not being objective about what is essentially a hard fact of human limitation across board.
To put it differently, the movies doth lie to you, dear Romeo.
Juliet is not sleeping, nor will she take her life for you - Like, EVER! She is else where; balancing opportunity cost and life-insurance.
Still, it's a good yardstick to use to measure yourself rather than measuring 'types of women' by.
In this regard, there are no 'types of women' -- or men. There are just people.
Love doesn't conquer all -- At least not in the beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment