Dating for Nerds: A Shy Guy's Guide to Meeting Women

[zoobyshoe]

I interpret as it more "snide and sneering". You've got to allow for the fact that, as a sit-com, certain traits are greatly exaggerated and demodramatic. Melodramatic speech patterns are a common hack in gay cliches.

I agree to both your assertions here. What you don't seem to be picking up on is neither exaggeration nor melodrama, but an off the wall effeminate edge which is distinct from the love of good diction you sometimes (but not always) find in people with Asperger's. Good diction exaggerated for comedic purposes should sound pretentious, not gay. Gay flamers often have noticably good diction, but that is not the element of their speech that makes them sound effeminate.

Yes, his friends think he's weird all the time. He is. It's just that he's less about the "stuck inside his own head" than the other traits. (Stuck inside his own head would not make for a very intersting sitcom character).

Your assertion was that he represents mild Aspergers, which excused, in your mind, the errors of portraying him as conversant in non-verbal communication by significant eye contact and conversational give and take. He's not mild, as the video I linked to proves, and your assertion he's mild conflicts with your assertions he's exaggerated for comedic effect.

I think all you're really trying to communicate is that you are mischievously delighted by your belief the writers are alluding to the Autistic Spectrum while maintaining plausible deniability.

You've got to be careful, having seen only one example of the character, to not jump to conclusions what is due to ASD and what is not. Sheldon is wearing a long-sleeved shirt under a t-shirt but you don't assume that's a representation of Asperger's, right?

I think you have to be careful about encouraging the conclusion people are authetically looking at Aspergers here, when he's doing things a person with Asperger's couldn't do (non-verbal communication by eye contact). This pronouncement:

And that, my icosaheptakilofriend, is a portryal of a person with Asperger's.

is phrased to imply you think it's a definitive portrayal. In fact, Galteeth's analysis is the only good one: he's a grab bag of all things "nerdy".

Everyone ought to watch this to help reground in the reality of Asperger's after viewing the sit com:
http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-youtube-video-on-aspergers.html

The various links on the page seem pretty informative also (haven't read them all).

 

[DaveC426913]

What you don't seem to be picking up on is neither exaggeration nor melodrama, but an off the wall effeminate edge which is distinct from the love of good diction you sometimes (but not always) find in people with Asperger's. Good diction exaggerated for comedic purposes should sound pretentious, not gay. Gay flamers often have noticably good diction, but that is not the element of their speech that makes them sound effeminate.

Agreed, I'm not picking up any gay or effeminate tones.

 

[DaveC426913]

I actually meant mathematical equations for dating. I guess some may accidentally see that as a double meaning.

No, it wasn't accidental. I got your meaning; I just chose to repurpose it.

if I spend hours practicing statistical computing programming language and acquire data sets, etc, my dating life can be normal!

OK, there is absolutely no middle ground on this one. There are exactly three ways of interpreting the above:
1] The writer has said it firmly tongue-in-cheek, as a joke, because it's ridiculous.
2] The writer is a troll, saying it only to get a rise, because it's ridiculous.
3] The writer is dead serious and thus has a very serious socializing disorder.
It is one of the three.

 

[Galteeth]

No, it wasn't accidental. I got your meaning; I just chose to repurpose it.


OK, there is absolutely no middle ground on this one. There are exactly three ways of interpreting the above:
1] The writer has said it firmly tongue-in-cheek, as a joke, because it's ridiculous.
2] The writer is a troll, saying it only to get a rise, because it's ridiculous.
3] The writer is dead serious and thus has a very serious socializing disorder.
It is one of the three.

Option 4: Elaborate viral marketing scam for some NLP type dating system, aimed at "nerds."

 

[27Thousand]

Option 4: Elaborate viral marketing scam for some NLP type dating system, aimed at "nerds."

That's another reason mathematical models would be something worthwhile to work for. The reason, some people confuse what is really pseudo-psychology with academic peer-review psychology. If you go to Google:

"Despite its popularity[13], NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science because of issues of professional credibility[13] and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its models and claimed efficacy.[14] It appears to have little impact on academic psychology, and limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming"

The Psychology you learn in school is much different than that, and uses the Scientific Method and peer-review journals (it doesn't mean the other stuff can't be true, but rather Psychology takes the same stance towards these groups that Karl Popper took towards those who didn't believe in making things falsifiable). Academic Psychology shouldn't be confused with media Psychology, just like Physics is not to be confused with Flat Earth Society.

Academic Psychology already uses quantitative methods inside of studies like "null hypothesis", effect size, regression to show there's some significance, etc. However, it's mostly within the individual peer-review articles, but not as much between studies. I think doing that would be great, so a great place to start is flirting, so we can go past the null hypothesis, falsification, prediction, etc, and bring up models between studies. Remember, I said I'm looking for a model that's not NLP (where they say it's exactly a certain way), but rather a more realistic "stochastic model" where they calculate probability, as a starting point for flirting and then I'll let experience smooth out the edges. Since there are already quite a few peer-reviews where certain behaviors beat the null hypothesis in how people act when flirting, it's guaranteed I'll be able to find some sort of equation for calculating probability given variables. The real question is how vague vs. predictive is the equation going to be? (which I'm going to try and find out; if the adjusted R^2 is 0.2 [20% of the time it does better than chance] then it won't be worth it even if it beats the null hypothesis, but if I can get it up to 0.8 then it could be worthwhile even if many predictor variables are required) Even in Hard Sciences you can't be for sure that you have absolute truth, but rather go with the model/explanation/principle which best fits/predicts the evidence.

 

[27Thousand]

No, it wasn't accidental. I got your meaning; I just chose to repurpose it.


OK, there is absolutely no middle ground on this one. There are exactly three ways of interpreting the above:
1] The writer has said it firmly tongue-in-cheek, as a joke, because it's ridiculous.
2] The writer is a troll, saying it only to get a rise, because it's ridiculous.
3] The writer is dead serious and thus has a very serious socializing disorder.
It is one of the three.

Consider this, I want to learn how to flirt. I hear men say that they don't ask women on dates unless they "feel it", and women say they send men hints whether the man is aware of it or not. I hear women say they wish men who they're not interested in would just leave them alone, while those they are interested in should be more courageous and just "ask the woman out".

Someone suggested to me that reading whether someone's friendly, bored, flirtatious, etc is a good idea to increase chances. Then a woman on Yahoo! Answers told me to try flirting with women and see how they respond back, to get an idea of whether they're interested.

So then I came across resources saying that historians believe mathematical models is what set Galileo and Newton apart from most others who were interested in the natural world, even if they were criticized for it. If I get a hold of data sets from peer-review flirting studies, perhaps I could look for patterns even if nothing's 100%? If it helps make me more confident and be myself, if I can know who's going to be receptive, so that I don't have to stress out thinking of it and rather focus on those who are interested?

I mean, if I can just make it conceptual in my head how to tell who's receptive and not after I start talking to someone, then perhaps it may help?

 

[DaveC426913]

Consider this, I want to learn how to flirt.

Then get out there and flirt. Full stop.

 

[27Thousand]

Then get out there and flirt. Full stop.

And if people won't let me because my social skills aren't good enough, then where do I start in the first place? In order to learn from trial and error, you first need to be in those situations, and so that means developing social skills can help me get into situations where I can have experience (just like some say you can't get certain jobs without experience, but then it's difficult because in those situations you can't get into situations to have prior job experience without already having experience).

Also, don't you think you need something to try in the first place if you want to learn from trial and error? If you don't get it from "gut feeling" and instinct, then you may have to learn it the same way one learns the piano, through instruction followed by lots of practice.

Something to consider, don't you think in order to learn from experience you need to know if it's working or not? So learning how to read body language much better may increase my chances of learning from trial and error.

 

[DaveC426913]

And if people won't let me...

Won't let you? What do you mean? They nail your shoes to the floor?

then where do I start in the first place?

you start by joining in social expeiences and getting used to being around people.

In order to learn from trial and error, you first need to be in those situations, and so that means developing social skills can help me get into situations where I can have experience

Yes, so get out there and socialize.

Also, don't you think you need something to try in the first place if you want to learn from trial and error? If you don't get it from "gut feeling" and instinct, then you may have to learn it the same way one learns the piano, through instruction followed by lots of practice.

Forget the instruction. Get out there and socialize.

Something to consider, don't you think in order to learn from experience you need to know if it's working or not? So learning how to read body language much better may increase my chances of learning from trial and error.

Get out there and socialize.

All of this is rationalization. You are literally hiding behind your logic. Get out there.

 

[DanP]

Something to consider, don't you think in order to learn from experience you need to know if it's working or not? So learning how to read body language much better may increase my chances of learning from trial and error.

By the time you will learn the equations of body language you will be long a sad bitter old man.
Dont worry about chances. Just do. Quit thinking and DO something. Anything.

 

[DanP]

Yes, so get out there and socialize.


[/B]

You mean, out from the house in the mean world where the big bad wolf lurks ? No way :P Its safer on the computer behind the keyboard.

 

[27Thousand]

Won't let you? What do you mean? They nail your shoes to the floor?

For example, when I started college, I called someone on the phone I knew from high school, "How do you make friends?" He told me to invite people to do things with me. So my first semester in the dorm towers I called someone, on a different floor, on his dorm room phone. I asked him if he wanted to play ping pong. He said he would be busy. So I called him back a week later asking if he wanted to play ping pong. He then again said he was going to be busy. I tried this again for the next few weeks, then after a while thought maybe he might be getting annoyed, and then I stopped.

Later on someone told me you're supposed to try small talk with someone first so that they feel comfortable before asking them to do something. I tried doing that with roommates since you see them more often and it's less awkward, and it seemed like some were much warmer all of a sudden toward me and would do some activities, but then after asking them to do things a few times they seemed to be aloof while being friendly towards many other people instead. They'd also ask others to do things, but not really in return ask me even if I had asked them earlier. (There are many people who are analytical but are social because they know how to speak the other person's language, so the issue can't just be being analytical, plus I'd suppress being analytical with them so I know it's more to it than that. Even some people would all of a sudden seem extremely interested in something I was tfrom biology/physics I may have been thinking about at the time, but being interested in something together doesn't mean they want to hang out.)

Then I read in a book that sometimes people will ask people indirectly so that it comes across as less intrusive and if they say they're "busy" it's less of a rejection. So I would read examples of it, and if someone said they were interested in something or were doing something, I'd say something like, "I like doing that," etc. Then I found they'd sometimes they'd say something like, "You should come," or, "We should do that sometime" (before if they'd say, "We should do that sometime" I didn't do anything, because I didn't know how one was to respond to that until I read it in a book, and remember I read that late in life in college). However, after doing things together a few times, they'd seem to loose some interest. Worthwhile friendship I'd think would have much more to it than just doing some activities together, so maybe there's something I'm not doing?

If I talk to people from high school, they tell me that I seemed extremely extremely aloof and they thought it was weird, although from my perspective they wouldn't let me interact.

If I'm in social groups, it seems like people don't connect socially with me no matter how hard I try, although individual one on one doesn't seem to have the same issue. In social group settings they'll talk back and forth and seem interested in each other, but don't seem to notice me. I read in a book that people use body language to pass the conversation back and forth in group situations just like you throw a ball, so maybe if I learn more about it and use do it yourself exercises just like you learn to play the piano, maybe it'll help.

Mathematical models would allow me to visualize how it's all related (even if it's probability rather than certainty, it could give me a starting point to work from and then I could use experience to smooth out the edges).

 

[DanP]

.

If I'm in social groups, it seems like people don't connect socially with me no matter how hard I try, although individual one on one doesn't seem to have the same issue. In social group settings they'll talk back and forth and seem interested in each other, but don't seem to notice me. I read in a book that people use body language to pass the conversation back and forth in group situations just like you throw a ball,
.

Ok, what do you need a mathematical model for ? To tell you that they are not interested in you ? You already seem to know , realize and acknowledge this.

so maybe if I learn more about it and use do it yourself exercises just like you learn to play the piano, maybe it'll help.

You are like the kid who wants to learn football and play in NFL and yet all he does is watching football games in TV. Like the kid who wants to box, but delays ad infinitum joining
a boxing gym, for he preferes to run in his yard and say "Im getting in shape for boxing". Both end up doing a big nothing as time passes.

Reality check.

You want to learn how to interact with humans, there is only one way about it. Go down in the field and play.

Ill be blunt. Your approach doesn't have a chance in hell. With it, you won't get better at socializing, flirting, getting laid or whatever else you are trying to do. It will only make you a weirdo.

Second, I suggest to change yourself. Maybe you are the problem. Maybe ppl are not interesting in socializing with you because how you look. How you dress. How you relate to them.

Your chances to get better with this approach are a big 0. Face the evidence, and do what it takes. Maybe you need a bit more than understanding body language. If you need to change, do change yourself. And you can start by stopping obsessing over some fantasies.

 

[lisab]

For example, when I started college, I called someone on the phone I knew from high school, "How do you make friends?" He told me to invite people to do things with me. So my first semester in the dorm towers I called someone, on a different floor, on his dorm room phone. I asked him if he wanted to play ping pong. He said he would be busy. So I called him back a week later asking if he wanted to play ping pong. He then again said he was going to be busy. I tried this again for the next few weeks, then after a while thought maybe he might be getting annoyed, and then I stopped.

Later on someone told me you're supposed to try small talk with someone first so that they feel comfortable before asking them to do something. I tried doing that with roommates since you see them more often and it's less awkward, and it seemed like some were much warmer all of a sudden toward me and would do some activities, but then after asking them to do things a few times they seemed to be aloof while being friendly towards many other people instead. They'd also ask others to do things, but not really in return ask me even if I had asked them earlier. (There are many people who are analytical but are social because they know how to speak the other person's language, so the issue can't just be being analytical, plus I'd suppress being analytical with them so I know it's more to it than that. Even some people would all of a sudden seem extremely interested in something I was tfrom biology/physics I may have been thinking about at the time, but being interested in something together doesn't mean they want to hang out.)

Then I read in a book that sometimes people will ask people indirectly so that it comes across as less intrusive and if they say they're "busy" it's less of a rejection. So I would read examples of it, and if someone said they were interested in something or were doing something, I'd say something like, "I like doing that," etc. Then I found they'd sometimes they'd say something like, "You should come," or, "We should do that sometime" (before if they'd say, "We should do that sometime" I didn't do anything, because I didn't know how one was to respond to that until I read it in a book, and remember I read that late in life in college). However, after doing things together a few times, they'd seem to loose some interest. Worthwhile friendship I'd think would have much more to it than just doing some activities together, so maybe there's something I'm not doing?

If I talk to people from high school, they tell me that I seemed extremely extremely aloof and they thought it was weird, although from my perspective they wouldn't let me interact.

If I'm in social groups, it seems like people don't connect socially with me no matter how hard I try, although individual one on one doesn't seem to have the same issue. In social group settings they'll talk back and forth and seem interested in each other, but don't seem to notice me. I read in a book that people use body language to pass the conversation back and forth in group situations just like you throw a ball, so maybe if I learn more about it and use do it yourself exercises just like you learn to play the piano, maybe it'll help.

Mathematical models would allow me to visualize how it's all related (even if it's probability rather than certainty, it could give me a starting point to work from and then I could use experience to smooth out the edges).

27K, you're way, way overthinking this. People here have repeatedly given you great advice: you can only learn to meet women by meeting women.

But I sense your apprehension, so you have to start small. Go somewhere where there are lots of young people, like a university or a shopping mall. As you walk past a woman you find attractive, look her in the eyes and say "hi" and keep walking.

Just take note of the woman's response. Some will look away immediately - that means, I'm not interested. Some will pretend not to see you - that also means, I'm not interested.

But once and a while one will say "hi" back, or smile. That means, maybe I'm interested.

If you're very shy and unsure of yourself, you may have to practice this for several weeks before it feels natural. Do it until you're comfortable saying "hi" and until you feel confident interpreting the response.

That's a first step, no mathematical modeling is required.

 

[Evo]

This has gone on too long. Locked.

27Thousand, talking to a school counselor or a therapist would be a good idea.