It seems one of the issues coming up here is that I was assuming dating documents would be written out honestly and in good faith. In particular, I was assuming that those that aren't doing so won't be taking my advice anyway. I also recognize that there's a certain degree of self-knowledge I'm assuming, because largely these documents are written by people who have dated enough to know what they do and don't actually want. I didn't notice this when writing the document out, but I do now.
I also suspect that the lack of examples given makes it look like I'm...
Threads are largely on Facebook, along with personal conversations. Most of these are with women seeking a nesting partner, and most of these documents are written by men seeking a nesting partner, so in this sense the group I got most of my data from is the target audience. I do think that a lot of this is more generalizable, at least within our community though; knowing whether or not your partner wants kids is useful regardless of gender and sexuality. I think part of what you're getting at is that it's ambiguous where each piece of advice is comi...
I hate to weigh in with more criticism here, but I've also noticed this idea of putting up a long list of requirements on ACX threads and it struck me as rather self-defeating - to imagine that you can usefully define 'dealbreakers' in advance and screen people out, or do Zoom calls as the first date instead of in person dates etc.
'Tell vs Ask culture' is a great idea and I am fond of telling things too. But telling only works if you can, in fact, 'tell' something - unfortunately, when it comes to romance, "we know more than we can tell". I mean, we live i...
I base what people tend to expect on the threads resulting from such documents, as well as a good amount of conversation that takes place in person. Similarly, what "should" be included is a mix of things I've noticed in existing documents, avoidable failure modes of relationships, and from my own conversations with people (largely women) in the community discussing what they're looking for in a partner in general. Given that these documents are written with the intent to be straightforward about what one does and doesn't want in seeking a long term partne...
Oh yeah, thanks for linking that! Looking over it now, I got some of my ideas from this post when I read it quite a few years ago, and forgot to link it in my main post.
Yeah, it should be noted that anyone who knows me cannot be my client, though I can take on friends of friends as clients. Regarding Reflect specifically, you can select how many matches they give you and/or contact Reflect directly if you are matched with people you know, to help mitigate this issue.
Huh, this is very different from the experience of myself and those who I have spoken to about this when writing this post. Is this something you or anyone else has written about?
This was initially written in the context of my therapeutic practice, so alas, I cannot provide a link. I appreciate your thoughtful response! Glad it was helpful
Sometimes it depends on a person's mood, and sometimes it depends on the person or the specifics around the activity. There are movies and shows I would only watch if I wanted to zone out, but a mystery or thriller isn't one of them, and it would be hard to get totally engrossed in something I'd seen a few times because I know what's happening next. But for music, it's been long enough since I'd played that I wouldn't be able to use that as a passive distraction -- even for a relatively simple piece.
Perhaps. If so, I certainly look forward to reading that future post.
However, I will say that before one begins to lay out an elaborate explanation of why something is hard to explain, one might perhaps begin by offering at least a taste of just why, exactly, anyone might be interested in having that thing explained at all.
An analogy: suppose I have invented a widget. Well, so I claim, anyway, having shown up in your office (you’re an investor, to whom I propose to license my invention). Upon entering, I immediately launch into a long, elaborate explanatio...
In cases like this, it helps if the end condition is discussed early on in therapy. If this worry comes up, it becomes important to find out where this insecurity comes from. Many therapists will have an open door policy -- if we decide your goals have been met and we terminate, you can at any time come back and decide to start therapy with me again. If termination is due to the therapist leaving, they can refer the client to someone new. In some cases (though this is easier in a clinic) the gap can be bridged by having a session dedicated to the old therapist introducing the client to the new therapist, and helping create that bond before detaching from the client.
Usually, therapist and client talk about goals early on in therapy. This depends a lot on what the therapist's expertise is and what the client sees as being the major problem. A client could come in with PTSD and say their major goal is to not have flashbacks anymore, or with social anxiety and have the goal of being able to approach new people without having a panic attack. It may not necessarily mean the end of therapy (could continue with new goals or see someone new or just stop, depending on what the client wants).
The failure of "put yourself in their shoes" seems similar to the failure of "do to others as you'd have them do to you". You have to be hyperaware of each way that the person you're modeling is different from you, and be willing to use these details as tools that can be applied to other things you know about them. This is where I actually find the ideas of guess/ask/tell culture to be the most helpful. They honestly seem pretty useless when not combined with modeling, precisely because it turns into "this is the one I have picked and you just have to deal with it".
I'm somewhat surprised at the notion of "just be trustworthy" being helpful for anyone, though maybe that's because of an assumption that anyone who doesn't already employ this tactic must have considered it and have solid reasons to not use it?
an assumption that anyone who doesn't already employ this tactic must have considered it and have solid reasons to not use it?
I think by default, the main way rationalists become less trustworthy is not on purpose: it comes from a form of naive consequentialism where you do things like make plans with people and then abandon them for better plans without considering the larger effect of this sort of behavior on how much people trust you. One way to say it is that one of the main consequences of you taking an action is to update other people's models of you and this is a consequence that naive consequentialists typically undervalue.
Our community does seem to have enough pull to Ravenclaw Together that CFAR workshops are a thing and everyone ends up moving the the Bay (or New York). Though that does seem like a pretty strong failure mode. And as Raemon mentioned below, there is the unconference in the works.
Also, if posts about how to change your thinking can sway the way so many of us conduct ourselves, posts about changing the ways we act and feel could surely make enough headway with a significant enough portion of the community.
Side note: your last few bits did shed light on why it may be important to emphasize Hufflepuff work ethic among Ravenclaws :P
This makes sense. Thanks for updating the end -- the way these values are portrayed contributes a lot to how seriously they are or are not taken.
Emotional labor can go into the noticing and motivation of the work (ie "the host of the party is busy making food, so I will clean up this mess" or "this person does not like cleaning and I notice that their table is sticky, so I will wipe it down for them"). It's easy for non-Hufflepuffs to ignore tasks like these or take them for granted unless they're explicitly asked to do something.
The description of a Hufflepuff as "the one who does all the work" still sounds like a one-dimensional characterization. The focus on a Hufflepuff's work ethic in attempts to portray the house as being strong (with a side of "loyalty" and "friendship" used as buzzwords) feels woefully incomplete. It's largely the emotional labor that makes the work ethic possible, so saying "Hufflepuffs are hard-working, we should be more like that" is basically like saying "Ravenclaws are smart, we should be more like that".
The only things that I know studies have shown to be predictors of how successful a relationship will be are:
- Similar IQ (not necessarily high or low, but similar to each other; can't remember the study specifically)
- Lack of Gottman's Four Horsemen: contempt, criticism, stonewalling, defensiveness (though this has largely been studied by Gottman himself because it's hard to get anyone else to study your theories in psych)
Honestly maybe I should have just listed the four horsemen and left it at that :P