Emotional Intelligence

[chevalier]

Just because ‘more attractive’ (or confident, charismatic, ect) people are more likely to get dates or phone numbers or attention doesn’t mean that they are getting away with anything, because there is nothing wrong with those things.

Again, to get away with something means to avoid unpleasant consequences of doing it. It does not require the activity to be wrong, it only requires that the activity could otherwise lead to bad consequences for you. (Dictionary.)

I may be happy to give my phone number to one man who asks for it but not to another man who asks, but I’m not letting the first man get away with anything.

Actually you are, if, for example, your standard rule is to refuse but you bend it for a handsome specimen. That’s precisely what getting away with something is about.

 

[pensmama87]

Potentially everything. Definitely compliments and innuendo or outright asking someone out but also proposals such as spending time together outside of a public space or something that could make people think that the man and the woman are in a relationship together.

And not just men — it’s the same with women. Attractive women also get away with more. And less attractive or, say, shorter girls, have to work harder, just like the less attractive men.

Regardless who of us is male and who is female, people we’re attracted to (and to a lesser extent people whom we only consider attractive but don’t really feel the attraction) get away with more.

We’re more tolerant of their faults, and we are more forgiving of all the things they do wrong (in some cases we seem to think nothing they can do could possibly be wrong). If we aren’t sufficiently impressed with someone (not just attraction but e.g. social class), the same advances as would be otherwise welcome will now be tedious, creepy, overly clingy, too presuming etc. Our reception of other people’s advances always has something to do with our boundaries, and we loosen those boundaries more for people we are more attracted to, have more in common with etc.

Naturally, a strictly moral person will reject improper advances regardless of personal attraction to the impropriately acting person, but such upright people with strong discipline are an exception, not the general rule.

I’m not saying I disagree with you, but to some extent, I think attractiveness can be achieved pretty easily by most people. Sure, there is in general a preference for taller, symmetrical features, etc, but there’s a lot to be said for simply knowing and practicing hygiene and social graces.

I could have the same guy approach me in public (if I was single) and I’d likely turn him down if he didn’t make eye contact, was clearly unwashed, etc. But if it looks like he makes an effort and seems to know how to talk to a person, he’s probably going to get a lot farther. But innate characteristics haven’t changed.

Do I think the absolutely awesome “perfect 10s” could get away with murder if they wished? Probably, but they’re also an incredibly tiny segment of the population. Most of us are decent looking and can learn how to present ourselves well if we want to.

It’s a shame that etiquette and conversation don’t seem to be specifically taught anymore. But books like this can be very helpful in their place.

And “smooth operators,” especially when it’s men talking to women, also run the risk of setting off lots of creep alarms. They may “succeed” sometimes (depending on one’s definition of success), but IMO it doesn’t last.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Again, to get away with something means to avoid unpleasant consequences of doing it. It does not require the activity to be wrong, it only requires that the activity could otherwise lead to bad consequences for you. (Dictionary.)

You usually get away with something after you do it, and it’s usually something that you did wrong.

We’re more tolerant of their faults, and we are more forgiving of all the things they do wrong (in some cases we seem to think nothing they can do could possibly be wrong). If we aren’t sufficiently impressed with someone (not just attraction but e.g. social class), the same advances as would be otherwise welcome will now be tedious, creepy, overly clingy, too presuming etc. Our reception of other people’s advances always has something to do with our boundaries, and we loosen those boundaries more for people we are more attracted to, have more in common with etc.

There are a number of different reasons why one man might get a date with a woman, and another man might not. For example, men who appear to get a better response from women might just be better at reading a woman’s body language and might understand when a woman is giving him a ‘back-off’ signal or when she is responding positively. A man who cannot/will not read her body language may get in her space when she is clearly uncomfortable or keep talking to her when she is trying to politely reject him, which is why he gets a negative response. Men aren’t considered creepy for just being ‘unattractive’, it’s the way that they behave with women which gets that reaction.

 

[chevalier]

I’m not saying I disagree with you, but to some extent, I think attractiveness can be achieved pretty easily by most people. Sure, there is in general a preference for taller, symmetrical features, etc, but there’s a lot to be said for simply knowing and practicing hygiene and social graces.

Most definitely. As a wise Jamaican proverb says: ‘Humble calf suck de most milk.’

Courteous, friendly, humble or entertaining people achieve a lot of things others can’t, in all areas of life which involve contact with others. Sometimes this alone is responsible for the one guy getting the number and other not getting it. But a lot of the time it’ll be the looks/confidence/whatever or a mix of both. As was probably the case in my own situation when I was the one pulling off things like that. (A couple dozen lbs and a couple tufts of hair ago. And never for fun.)

I could have the same guy approach me in public (if I was single) and I’d likely turn him down if he didn’t make eye contact, was clearly unwashed, etc. But if it looks like he makes an effort and seems to know how to talk to a person, he’s probably going to get a lot farther. But innate characteristics haven’t changed.

What if he looked like your dreams come true? I found myself in that sort of situation once, and she did get away with a lot. Until I made the wise decision — and paid the price in pain. But it was well worth it. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, even if it means shooting your dreams between the eyes. Some other time I met the most courteous and kind woman ever, on the other hand — and she turned out to be a pro-‘choice’ neonatologist.

Do I think the absolutely awesome “perfect 10s” could get away with murder if they wished? Probably, but they’re also an incredibly tiny segment of the population. Most of us are decent looking and can learn how to present ourselves well if we want to.

It’s gradual. Unless one actually is spectacularly attractive (on that particular occasion, in that particular beholder’s eye), one isn’t going to get spectacular results. However, the more attractive you are, the more easily you will avoid offending people by crossing into their private space or making allusions to a possible romantic relationship etc. (Except for people who are making an active effort or are holy enough that they don’t need to.)

It’s a shame that etiquette and conversation don’t seem to be specifically taught anymore. But books like this can be very helpful in their place.

Conversation would be tricky, but there definitely are some etiquette writers still alive.

And “smooth operators,” especially when it’s men talking to women, also run the risk of setting off lots of creep alarms.

Oh tell me more about that.

They may “succeed” sometimes (depending on one’s definition of success), but IMO it doesn’t last.

Any sort of gimmick is short-lasting.

 

[Sarcelle]

Your not getting promoted may have more to do with company policies, internal politics, fiscal discipline and perhaps some other things than emotional factors of the kind you’re analysing.

Actually, there’s more to that. With the opposite sex, how much you can get away with depends on how attractive you are. And what you would call ‘emotional intelligence’ is not unlikely just skill at the game (or even outright manipulation — and women give themselves too much credit for the ability to see through and resist that), maybe with a touch of natural talent. That still technically falls under the definition of ‘emotional intelligence’, but it’s hardly a respectable skill to have.

For the record, men are not the only one of the two sexes to have a propensity for socially inappropriate behaviour while dating or in other social contexts. They just tend to get away with it more easily, because men are too tactful to bring it up with them (and perhaps more tolerant of it, too) and women don’t often seem to be exceedingly capable of critical reflection about the propriety of their own behaviour.

So that’s it for the alleged advantage of the prettier sex in social aptitude, sorry. And I say this as a socially and etiquettally conservative person with traditional upbringing, who needs to overcome basic inhibitions to even say something critical of a woman or women.

Attractive women get away with a lot more, probably even more so than attractive men since men will put up with a lot more just to be with an attractive woman.

 

[pensmama87]

What if he looked like your dreams come true? I found myself in that sort of situation once, and she did get away with a lot. Until I made the wise decision — and paid the price in pain. But it was well worth it. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, even if it means shooting your dreams between the eyes. Some other time I met the most courteous and kind woman ever, on the other hand — and she turned out to be a pro-‘choice’ neonatologist.

Honestly, I tend to pay a lot of attention to behavior, and it creeps me out when anybody takes licenses that I haven’t given permission for. I am a naturally reserved and cautious person, so that probably plays a role. Feeling safe is a big deal to me.

I am a pleasant person and generally sociable, and also reasonably attractive, but I will say that my public “persona” is probably a lot more “do not approach” than others, and that’s on purpose. I don’t get propositioned often - basically never now that I’m not in bars with really drunk people.

 

[chevalier]

You usually get away with something after you do it,

Of course. You only get away with something when you avoid the consequences. Consequences come into play only after you do it. For example ask out someone way above your proverbial league (not like I’m a fan of categorizing people like that).

and it’s usually something that you did wrong.

Wrong, or the wrong way, or wrong in some other people’s eyes, generally something you aren’t supposed to be doing.

There are a number of different reasons why one man might get a date with a woman, and another man might not. For example, men who appear to get a better response from women might just be better at reading a woman’s body language and might understand when a woman is giving him a ‘back-off’ signal or when she is responding positively. A man who cannot/will not read her body language may get in her space when she is clearly uncomfortable or keep talking to her when she is trying to politely reject him, which is why he gets a negative response.

I’m sorry, but aren’t you walking into a bit of a contradiction there? A man surely doesn’t get a date for knowing when to stop asking for one. He gets to avoid an open, less polite rejection, but that’s not the same as getting the date.

Men aren’t considered creepy for just being ‘unattractive’,

Maybe in an ideal world. In real life men succeed a lot because of sheer confidence, among other things.

it’s the way that they behave with women which gets that reaction.

Yes, except the reward is often not quite for the good or nice behaviour but often for quite the opposite. If she likes him, he gets to get away with things. If she doesn’t, he doesn’t.

Incidentally, it’s the same with men who eiter find or not find a woman attractive. An attractive woman gets fewer and milder negative reactions to inappropriate behaviour.

 

[chevalier]

Honestly, I tend to pay a lot of attention to behavior, and it creeps me out when anybody takes licenses that I haven’t given permission for.

I’m the same. But my point is that people get away more easily with taking such licences if they are attractive in general, attractive to that particular other person or especially when that other person is actively attracted to them (of which the probability is somewhat higher when the person is generally considered attractive).

Thus, the men who got the positive results are simply likely to just have been the men whom the women found appealing, and the men who got the negative results are simply likely to just have been the men whom the women didn’t find appealing. And probably for something else, something more physiological than good manners or good behaviour etc.

And again, it works just the same if you reverse the sexes.

 

[pensmama87]

I’m the same. But my point is that people get away more easily with taking such licences if they are attractive in general, attractive to that particular other person or especially when that other person is actively attracted to them (of which the probability is somewhat higher when the person is generally considered attractive).

Thus, the men who got the positive results are simply likely to just have been the men whom the women found appealing, and the men who got the negative results are simply likely to just have been the men whom the women didn’t find appealing.

And again, it works just the same if you reverse the sexes.

We’ll agree to disagree. I don’t find that has been true in my experience.

 

[chevalier]

Attractive women get away with a lot more, probably even more so than attractive men since men will put up with a lot more just to be with an attractive woman.

Yup.

We’ll agree to disagree. I don’t find that has been true in my experience.

No wonder. I wouldn’t expect a mature person with a Prayer Warrior tag to be liable to that particular weakness of character we were talking about. There are people who can avoid making subjective attractiveness an even actual attraction a factor when reacting to other people’s behaviour positively or negatively. But most people are probably different.

Please don’t ignore, however, the fact that we don’t have to try as hard as otherwise when the target of our affections is already, from the start, receptive to them. I think in that in the example from which the whole angle started some luckless men, who hadn’t yet met a woman sufficiently attracted to them, were comparing themselves — apples and oranges — to other men who had simply met women who liked them.

Apples usually have more success with apple lovers and oranges with orange lovers. When an apple meets an orange lover, no wonder the apple doesn’t get the same results that an orange gets with an orange lover.

No rocket science or bizarre heresy here.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I’m sorry, but aren’t you walking into a bit of a contradiction there? A man surely doesn’t get a date for knowing when to stop asking for one. He gets to avoid an open, less polite rejection, but that’s not the same as getting the date.

He looks like he has more success because he doesn’t try to get dates with women who he realises aren’t interested. If he can recognise that someone is very likely to be interested before he asks, then he has a lower chance of being rejected.

Maybe in an ideal world. In real life men succeed a lot because of sheer confidence, among other things.

People succeed at lots of things when they’re confident, but not succeeding isn’t creepy. If I reject someone (regardless of what he looks like) I don’t automatically think he’s clingy or creepy. If I reject someone multiple times, even if it’s just by showing that I’m uncomfortable, then I definitely think he’s creepy.

 

[Xantippe]

There are a number of different reasons why one man might get a date with a woman, and another man might not. For example, men who appear to get a better response from women might just be better at reading a woman’s body language and might understand when a woman is giving him a ‘back-off’ signal or when she is responding positively. A man who cannot/will not read her body language may get in her space when she is clearly uncomfortable or keep talking to her when she is trying to politely reject him, which is why he gets a negative response. Men aren’t considered creepy for just being ‘unattractive’, it’s the way that they behave with women which gets that reaction.

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly, I tend to pay a lot of attention to behavior, and it creeps me out when anybody takes licenses that I haven’t given permission for. I am a naturally reserved and cautious person, so that probably plays a role. Feeling safe is a big deal to me.

**Right. And for me, that includes other women, too. Obviously, it’s not a big safety issue in that situation, but I like for people of both genders to respect my space.
**
I am a pleasant person and generally sociable, and also reasonably attractive, but I will say that my public “persona” is probably a lot more “do not approach” than others, and that’s on purpose. I don’t get propositioned often - basically never now that I’m not in bars with really drunk people.

Likewise, I know a lot of mothers complain about getting lots of unwanted parenting advice in public.

For whatever reason, I do not get that and never have, even when doing something demonstrably stupid.

 

[pensmama87]

Likewise, I know a lot of mothers complain about getting lots of unwanted parenting advice in public.

For whatever reason, I do not get that and never have, even when doing something demonstrably stupid.

Me neither. (I’ve always found that baffling when so many other moms experience the opposite, but maybe I just give off a strong “mind your own business, please” vibe.)

Chev, I think I can agree with you based on your last post. I would say it probably has less to do with “attractiveness” in particular, just that people who appeal to us for whatever reason are less likely to give us cause for concern right away. I’ve known some great salespeople who were not conventionally attractive, but they had other factors about them that made people likely to trust them.

 

[Xantippe]

Chev, I think I can agree with you based on your last post. I would say it probably has less to do with “attractiveness” in particular, just that people who appeal to us for whatever reason are less likely to give us cause for concern right away. I’ve known some great salespeople who were not conventionally attractive, but they had other factors about them that made people likely to trust them.

Yeah–look at somebody like Alan Rickman or Benedict Cumberbatch. They are (objectively speaking) funny looking dudes, but lots of women find them wildly attractive.

Here’s a pick of BC looking weird:

salon.com/2015/05/30/the_televisual_sherlock_the_role_that_made_benedict_cumberbatch_a_star_drove_another_actor_insane/

I feel like there’s a big ol’ tautology in this discussion, namely that attractive people are attractive. Why, yes, of course–that’s what “attractive” means–a person that attracts other people. There are a lot of different overlapping elements to attraction (physical attributes, posture, movement, voice, social skills, emotional intelligence, wit, intellect, virtue, etc.) and I think it’s more helpful to tease out the different elements. Because the problem with talking about “attractiveness” as a single unit is that there tends to be an overemphasis on purely physical attributes, whereas those are just a single element, not to be mistaken for the whole. I always like to mention the example of Michael Scott, the boss from The Office (American version). Michael Scott (as played by Steve Carrel) is very conventionally good-looking with a pleasant voice, but the more you get to know him, the less attractive he is, because the more you notice all the non-appearance elements of attraction that are missing–social skills, emotional intelligence, wit, intellect, virtue, etc. So I personally can’t imagine working in the imaginary office and being attracted to Michael Scott, because so much of what’s necessary for attraction isn’t there.

 

[chevalier]

He looks like he has more success because he doesn’t try to get dates with women who he realises aren’t interested. If he can recognise that someone is very likely to be interested before he asks, then he has a lower chance of being rejected.

People succeed at lots of things when they’re confident, but not succeeding isn’t creepy. If I reject someone (regardless of what he looks like) I don’t automatically think he’s clingy or creepy. If I reject someone multiple times, even if it’s just by showing that I’m uncomfortable, then I definitely think he’s creepy.

What you describe happens already after the rejection, not before it. It doesn’t answer why one why, for example, one man will get the dance but another will not. This is because, in your explanation, the rejection has already taken place. By contrast, the guy who compared himself to other guys was asking why he was rejected in the first place.

The situation he referred to was more like this:

A woman sits at a bar. A man asks if she fancy a drink or just tells the barkeep to put one for her on his tab. The woman likes the gesture… or she doesn’t. What is the reason for the different reactions? Well, for starters, every woman is different, especially with regard to her personal limits and her taste in men, so it’s hard to generalize. Next, the mood a person is in on the particular day (not only a woman but also a man) plays a great role in determining such reactions (as in go away vs nice to have some company). And, finally, the stranger’s attractiveness always plays a role. Especially if something clicks and we (either a man or a woman) begin falling for that stranger’s charm right off the bat.

Or, a bunch of highschoolers go to the same school and class. They are boys and girls, let’s say in an equal proportion. One of the guys gets away with using daring and cocky openers on the girls, another one doesn’t. What’s the explanation? Same as above: Maybe the ‘successful’ one simply got lucky and the girl(s) he approached were those that liked such daring openers in general. Or maybe they were more receptive to such openers from anyone whatsoever at a particular time and place due to their mood and their situation in general at the time. Or maybe his execution of the moves played a role (he probably did them better and was more natural at them than anyone who was only trying to copy him — originals tend to be better than copies). Or maybe he was simply the captain of the baseball team and the other guy was a nerd.

When the same woman tolerates the same moves from one man but not from another, all other things being equal, including that they are both friends or both strangers and there is no such other relevant difference, then it simply comes down to attractiveness.

Same way, if a woman does the pursuing, her success is actually not independent of her intelligence or confidence or tact and manner, but it largely depends on how attractive she is. A very attractive woman will most probably get a guy’s phone number (or his company for something that starts in 10 minutes from now or for a walk, or whatever) for just walking up to a stranger and asking; a somewhat attractive woman could pull it off too, especially on a not strikingly attractive guy; a plainer woman could perhaps pull it off because of her confidence and courage and openness (or boldness, ingenuity, whatever floated the man’s boat), but the chance is just simply not as high. … And for men who approach women I believe things go almost just the same way (yes, women are a bit less visual and build their attraction to a man a bit more gradually, but it’s not a night-and-day sort of difference).

Bottom line: Compatibility and attraction, with a dose of situational circumstances. * Not* likely to involve too much emotional intelligence, if any. Largely depends on whether your target is already attracted to you, or at least finds you attractive, or not. Pretty much regardless of people’s respective sexes.

 

[chevalier]

But please don’t think I don’t hear you when you speak about the importance of paying attention to one’s body language when approaching people, of course not. It’s just that ability or inability to read body language doesn’t really answer the question of why the same ‘openers’ work for some people but not for others.

For the record, since body language is an interesting subject to explore, body language can actually be misleading. First off, you can’t read any individual sign in isolation. You need to observe the whole person’s behaviour and even know that person’s general, typical pattern in order to get any reads — because you get reads only really basing on deviations from a person’s normal, typical behaviour. It’s only that some gestures are common among most people and have pretty much the same meaning, so you can guess at their meanings with some reliable probability. But you still need to check for any outside factors, e.g. reactions caused by a third party.

Example scenario: A girl’s correcting her hair and shifting her legs when talking to you. Or a guy is correcting his tie, deepening his voice, putting his chest forward and sucking in his slightly rounding belly. Is that person attracted to you? Likely. Unless he or she is still thinking about the handsome guy or pretty girl he or she talked to 5 minutes ago or looking forward mentally to meeting with a boyfriend/girlriend in 2 hours from now. Or she may have ADHD or be a shy type. Or just have a tick of sorts.

Or — the most deceptive one perhaps — he or she may very well be attracted to you (therefore your read is ‘correct’) but not willing to act on it for some sort of a conscious reason. And that is something you can’t normally read from body language. People’s decisions and opinions are way harder to read than their subconscious desires. If you start reading signs of both, and they conflict, chances are you just won’t be able to sort it all out.

One more — that person may just be uneasy. And signs of unease and anxiety are similar to signs of attraction, and for good reason. You can be wrong if you presume them to mean attraction. Also defensive, apprehensive etc. signs can mean something else than being repulsed by you. Won’t always get a good read from there. If you don’t know the background facts, you are likely to end up with a wild speculation that is untrue even though it looks like a logical theory on the face.

Likewise, I know a lot of mothers complain about getting lots of unwanted parenting advice in public.

For whatever reason, I do not get that and never have, even when doing something demonstrably stupid.

I presume that that unwanted advice doesn’t come exclusively or predominately from men — the one sex that’s supposed to be bad at reading body language and things like that and have a low EQ?

 

[pensmama87]

I feel like there’s a big ol’ tautology in this discussion, namely that attractive people are attractive. Why, yes, of course–that’s what “attractive” means–a person that attracts other people. There are a lot of different overlapping elements to attraction (physical attributes, posture, movement, voice, social skills, emotional intelligence, wit, intellect, virtue, etc.) and I think it’s more helpful to tease out the different elements. Because the problem with talking about “attractiveness” as a single unit is that there tends to be an overemphasis on purely physical attributes, whereas those are just a single element, not to be mistaken for the whole.

Yes!

I always like to mention the example of Michael Scott, the boss from The Office (American version). Michael Scott (as played by Steve Carrel) is very conventionally good-looking with a pleasant voice, but the more you get to know him, the less attractive he is, because the more you notice all the non-appearance elements of attraction that are missing–social skills, emotional intelligence, wit, intellect, virtue, etc. So I personally can’t imagine working in the imaginary office and being attracted to Michael Scott, because so much of what’s necessary for attraction isn’t there.

I was thinking about him too. IIRC he was a great salesperson but a horrible manager - probably because sales could let him rely on the stuff he had and reveal less of what he didn’t. But more social interactions in an office environment was disastrous. (And his dating life kind of worked the same way - lots of first dates, but except for a few also incredibly odd women it ended there.)

When I was thinking about my life I was thinking that sure, I might see a person who is incredibly physically attractive (tall, symmetrical features, clean, no obvious disfigurement), but their “advantage” in social interactions could be very limited. It could be seconds until they open their mouths (either because they say something stupid or reveal they haven’t brushed their teeth lately), or lean in too close, or commit some other clear social faux pas. I don’t think that makes me unusual, though I am more reserved than others. I’m also not in a dating situation, so maybe if I was there might be other elements involved (what’s also being ignored is that the person being approached has their own “agenda” or motivation for the social interaction - a person who really wants to be approached may be more permissive or understanding of quirks. That can be a positive thing, or if extreme a sign of desperation - “Oh wow this person took notice, so that’s all I need!”)

There is a stereotype about men putting up with awful behavior from a beautiful woman just because she’s beautiful, but in my experience there’s very few men who let that go on too long (and other men will make fun of him for it, and from what I’ve overheard I don’t think there’s jealousy involved. Bad behavior is a turn-off to both sexes IME.)

 

[chevalier]

Me neither. (I’ve always found that baffling when so many other moms experience the opposite, but maybe I just give off a strong “mind your own business, please” vibe.)

Could be. It’s possible to send people on their way without really offending them. As sir Winston put it:

Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions. :hey_bud:

Chev, I think I can agree with you based on your last post. I would say it probably has less to do with “attractiveness” in particular, just that people who appeal to us for whatever reason are less likely to give us cause for concern right away.

It can be that we define attractiveness in different ways. When speaking about ‘attractiveness’ I tend to mean the aggregate ability to send shivers down people’s spines rather than pretty faces or manly features or anything else in particular. But language is imprecise, so I sometimes need to talk about, for example, making up for it with confidence, while confidence is in itself one of the biggest attractants in the first place.

Back in Greek times, people would preach harmony of mind and body, but they would also, I guess, become liable — which we inherited, culturally — to thinking, instinctively, that beautiful people are good. Each sex will blame the other for falling for that one. (And probably each sex will be equally right as the other.)

However, there’s also the sheer compelling power of attraction that makes people submit to or tolerate a lot of things that they normally wouldn’t put up with — because the presence or attention of the attractive person is too precious to lose. (Obviously, the healthier one’s sense of self-esteem, the less likely this is to happen, though it would take an awesome level of stamina to resist every such challenge, especially from a really attractive person.)

I’ve known some great salespeople who were not conventionally attractive, but they had other factors about them that made people likely to trust them.

Yes, that or the ‘sheer compelling force’ I referred to earlier. Sometimes it’s not really that you trust them, but they are so cool people you feel you must — or even want — to buy from them, just because of that. Or, in some cases, you feel indebted because of something they’ve already done for you free of charge (which is an existing marketing and sales strategy, e.g. paid subscriptions on websites that offer a wealth of information free of charge).

Both in sales and in romance, people sometimes give strangers what they want just to get rid of them faster if it’s something small. This is why both salesmen and players will use small steps as a strategy. Players will even act like this: Say A, it doesn’t cost you anything! And then: You’ve already said A, so you might as well/even must say B now.

That, and loads of other strategies that work both in copywriting/sales and in dating.

But in dating I think men underappreciate the hold pretty women have on them, and women underappreciate the effect of a man’s attractiveness on how they are going to judge him or act about him. It’s more customary to think of women as angelic judges of character who reward courage, humility and resourcefulness.

 

[pensmama87]

Could be. It’s possible to send people on their way without really offending them. As sir Winston put it:

Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions. :hey_bud:

Yes. I have worked hard at that. I used to be much more permissive, but honestly that had to do with me and my insecurities and lack of training in how to say no, rather than about other people.

It can be that we define attractiveness in different ways. When speaking about ‘attractiveness’ I tend to mean the aggregate ability to send shivers down people’s spines rather than pretty faces or manly features or anything else in particular. But language is imprecise, so I sometimes need to talk about, for example, making up for it with confidence, while confidence is in itself one of the biggest attractants in the first place.

Maybe you are exaggerating here, but I can honestly say I have never, ever met a person who did that to me. To me that sounds like fairy tales, not real life. I know some very nice, very attractive, very charismatic people, but nope, that has never happened.

I suspect a feeling like that probably originates in the person who experiences it and has less to do with any objective quality of the other person, e.g. some young women may just be more prone to throw their underwear at guys playing music on stage, and while that’s a weird phenomenon that has happened, it’s still weird and the people who engage in it are not representative of the general population.

Or people who join the cult and swallow the kool-aid. Yes, a lot of people did it, but how many people heard the kool-aid call and said, “That’s crazy,” first?

I think you’re talking about extreme situations and applying them to the populace at large, and I have a suspicion you are overstepping. It’s nice to be told I must have great self-esteem or be unusual for these things to not have the hold on me that they might for others, but I don’t think I’m that unusual. (Is that a persuasion technique you are using? )