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

[whs]

So what do you think about using mathematical equations for body language when talking to women, at least using it to get a "probability" for the "gist of it" and using experience to smooth out the edges? Yes I know some may think this is wondering about odd things, and not unreasonable to think that. However, if reading body language makes the OP or any of us a better person and better at knowing if someone's interested then don't you think it could be useful? Something to consider, women want men they're interested into talk to them, and those they're not interested into stay away. I wonder if that could be a plus for learning how to become better at reading people?

Like for example, earlier at a place I worked there was this one beautiful woman who'd always smile at me and give girly waves. One day she was doing something with her teeth and I said, "You shouldn't do that, it could hurt your teeth." Something unexpected happened, she then smiled deeply, leaned toward me and said, "So... Why are you interested in my teeth?" with a big smile. I didn't say anything because I didn't know if you can ever be sure if someone's flirting or not. I think maybe learning how to figure out these things intellectually/scientifically may be able to greatly help some of us out? Something to consider, in order to learn from trial and error you need something to try out in the first place.

Lol. I don't need equations to read body language. It was built into my system when I was born. In fact, I let my subconscious do most of it.

But in all seriousness, you can get advice from millions of people, practice things to say etc, but at the end of the day all you really need to do is just remember that the girl is simply another human being.

Talk to them like you would talk to your buddy.

 

[27Thousand]

Lol. I don't need equations to read body language. It was built into my system when I was born. In fact, I let my subconscious do most of it.

But in all seriousness, you can get advice from millions of people, practice things to say etc, but at the end of the day all you really need to do is just remember that the girl is simply another human being.

Talk to them like you would talk to your buddy.

Okay so what about people who are not as very talented with social skills as you are? If there are people who have dyslexia/learning disorders, what's to stop some from neurologically having trouble with reading peoples' social intents?

 

[Redbelly98]

Everybody has trouble reading social intents, at one time or another. The more you interact with people, the better you get at it. I'd say it took me until my mid to late 30's before I was reasonably good at it.

If somebody has a disorder that presents a barrier to understanding personal relationships, they should see a professional about it. There may be drugs or other treatment that can help. But honestly, I don't think anybody on an internet forum could help someone in that situation. The person would have to go see a professional in person in order to get help for their specific situation.

 

[whs]

Okay so what about people who are not as very talented with social skills as you are? If there are people who have dyslexia/learning disorders, what's to stop some from neurologically having trouble with reading peoples' social intents?

Well ya, I am not sure how math would help these people? Like RedBelly said, they must go see a doctor that is trained to help them.

Might work for a robot though.

 

[Redbelly98]

Ah, I'm reading past posts more carefully now. So this is somehow about using math or physics to figure out how to interact with people socially? The problem I see with that is, it's like saying if you learn how to calculate ballistic trajectories and analyze collisions mathematically, then you could become a decent baseball player. Not so. You become a decent baseball player by actually practicing and playing baseball. The reaction time required for the task of hitting a ball, or engaging in social interactions for that matter, is way way shorter than the time needed for a mathematical analysis of the conditions that suddenly present themselves.

Of course, my earlier post that somebody with a disorder should seek help from a professional doctor still holds.[/size]

 

[Matterwave]

Just go over there and ask if you can borrow a cup of sugar for baking a chocolate cake (girls love chocolate cake). If you don't like baking then go over there and ask her if she has any tape followed by "because I'm ripped!" (do this while flexing your muscles, chicks love this).

Hahahaha, this is the first forum post in a long time that actually made me laugh out loud. XD

Anyways, on-topic, I've experimented with this, it doesn't seem just asking random chicks out work so well...Most of them will be polite, but probably think it's weird. You probably should start a more platonic conversation first. =D

 

[27Thousand]

Ah, I'm reading past posts more carefully now. So this is somehow about using math or physics to figure out how to interact with people socially? The problem I see with that is, it's like saying if you learn how to calculate ballistic trajectories and analyze collisions mathematically, then you could become a decent baseball player. Not so. You become a decent baseball player by actually practicing and playing baseball. The reaction time required for the task of hitting a ball, or engaging in social interactions for that matter, is way way shorter than the time needed for a mathematical analysis of the conditions that suddenly present themselves.

Of course, my earlier post that somebody with a disorder should seek help from a professional doctor still holds.[/size]

And using your baseball example, people aren't born knowing how to play baseball, and don't use their "gut feeling" or instinct to know it. They have to learn it, and through a lot of conscious effort until the technique becomes automatic. In professional sports, they say they do their best when they just "let it happen", or flow, but to get there they first have to think about it and practice. When you first learn baseball, you have to consciously think about technique until it becomes automatic enough. If a professional sports player finds they have a problem with technique, they will consciously focus on technique during practice sessions. Although during the game they work on "flow", during practice they often consciously think about technique to perfect it.

Most use instinct or "gut feeling" to learn social skills. However, just like some have learning disabilities/dyslexia, some may neurologically not pick up on it that easily. For these people, consciously thinking about technique and lots of real life practice until it becomes automatic may be necessary, just like learning to play the piano, ride a bike, complicated sports, etc. I'm saying you need practice, but that for some people the technique doesn't come on their own no matter how hard they try. They may need additional instruction just like people learning to play the piano don't usually use instinct/"gut feeling" to pick it up.

When someone takes a keyboarding class so that they don't have to finger peck, they need instruction and conscious thought at first until it becomes automatic. Just like people can become good with keyboarding through instruction and practice, by doing the same thing you may be able to cut down on reaction time with learning social skills that way.

 

[27Thousand]

Where I'm coming from

Well ya, I am not sure how math would help these people? Like RedBelly said, they must go see a doctor that is trained to help them.

Might work for a robot though.

Everyone, I think there may be a misunderstanding here! I'm not saying I'm going to say to a woman, "Excuse me for a second, let me pull out a calculator and a cheat sheet to figure you out!" No, that would be very weird!

Maybe this will help in where I'm coming from, and if you don't agree with my approach perhaps you can suggest a different one:

I have much trouble knowing if a woman is interested or just trying to be friendly. Earlier in college, there was a woman in one of my classes who would always smile and sit next to me in class. Then after class she would walk with me and talk until she went past her next class. This would happen like every day we had class together. There was this one guy in class who'd act very friendly toward her. One day she walked in class, paused, looked at him, then me, then him, then me, smiled, and came over and sat next to me. So after two months of this, I decided to ask her on date. When I finally did, she told me that she would have to see because she thought she was doing something with her roommates and would let me know the next day we had class. Then that next class time she didn't sit next to me, although she always did. After class she got up and walked out of class quickly. I then tried to catch up because I had to find out. She then finally said she was dating a guy. Then another time, some guy I knew said that some woman (different woman) told him that she didn't know what my problem was, because I wouldn't ask her on a date and she thought it was supposed to be obvious that I should. I asked the guy who the woman was, and he said he didn't know but that she referred to me. I was confused because I had no clue whatsoever who it could be.

So you see why it may be helpful to be able to read people/situations? So I went to Yahoo!Answers asking about this, and some woman said you can find out by testing the waters by lightly flirting and see how a woman responds back, to get a rough idea of whether she's receptive. She said you can try lightly touching the woman on the arm to get her attention when talking, or when joking with her. If she acts uncomfortable, then that's a lot less of a rejection than asking straight out for a date and she rejects. If she smiles, giggles, or does something to flirt back, then that's a good sign. Later on, I also came across some peer-review journal articles where they had hidden cameras at public social gatherings, etc, where researchers found most of the time when a man asks a woman on a date or some similar thing, the woman sent out a pattern of a type of body language, and most of the time when women don't send out this body language they don't get asked out (they kept number counts for all of it and used the Scientific Method). There are also follow up studies where they would test some of these body language patterns and found they correlated with how women would rate how attracted they were to a man (both personality and looks wise).

The thing is, in these studies not all body language is equal, some don't mean much while others do. Follow-up studies find some of the body language means that the women is just the flirty personality type who's after men in general, while these same exact follow-ups find some of the body language is quite associated with a woman being interested in a particular man. Then some critics will say a lot of body language is quite ambiguous and Miss Silvy accused it of not being Science, while at the same time others will say the opposite and that these studies is Science proving what's already common sense. So taking a bunch of classes because of a minor in Statistics, I know that there are techniques for coming up with equations where if you have data you can say "Given these many variables, we have an equation that says whatever percent of the time this will happen in this range." (In another thread I think you said you know quite a bit about curve fitting, etc) I'm not doing it because I want to pull out a calculator, but rather to help me form an image in my mind of how it generally works and what body language you need to pay attention to more, while at the same time what other body language doesn't matter as much. The patterns you can find by looking at data scatter plots/equations sometimes seem different than the gist of it you see on paper. Also, if you can come up with mathematical equations to predict "90% of the time it happens in this range" (or something along those lines), it would be good evidence to use against those critics who say to not care about body language. I mean, if you come up with equations, then how can the critics argue? Historians say mathematical equations was very a big part of what set Galileo/Newton apart from others. Of course I'd still use experience/practice in order to learn, I'd just use a lot of conscious thought for the techniques and practice until it becomes quite automatic, just like learning to play the piano, baseball, or learning to drive a car.

whs and others, hopefully this helps in where I'm coming from? I mean, isn't interacting with other human beings something worthwhile?

 

[seycyrus]

...
Earlier in college, there was a woman in one of my classes who would always smile and sit next to me in class. ... I decided to ask her on date. ...

Good Job, well done! Things might have changed for her from the beginning, but at least you know you tried. She started to leave quickly because she wanted to sent you a new "correct signal". Maybe her situation will change in the future and then she will know for a fact that you are interested.

...problem was, because I wouldn't ask her on a date and she thought it was supposed to be obvious that I should. ...

One often puts a positive bias on "signals" from women one finds attractive. You probably are not as attracted to this second woman as you were the first. or maybe you were so fixated on the first one, that you did not notice the second.

So you see why it may be helpful to be able to read people/situations? ...

Certainly! And it sounds like you are doing it the right way, through action rather than non-action. Keep up the good work, and relax.

 

[Astronuc]

I have much trouble knowing if a woman is interested or just trying to be friendly. Earlier in college, there was a woman in one of my classes who would always smile and sit next to me in class. Then after class she would walk with me and talk until she went past her next class. This would happen like every day we had class together. There was this one guy in class who'd act very friendly toward her. One day she walked in class, paused, looked at him, then me, then him, then me, smiled, and came over and sat next to me. So after two months of this, I decided to ask her on date. When I finally did, she told me that she would have to see because she thought she was doing something with her roommates and would let me know the next day we had class. Then that next class time she didn't sit next to me, although she always did. After class she got up and walked out of class quickly. I then tried to catch up because I had to find out. She then finally said she was dating a guy. Then another time, some guy I knew said that some woman (different woman) told him that she didn't know what my problem was, because I wouldn't ask her on a date and she thought it was supposed to be obvious that I should. I asked the guy who the woman was, and he said he didn't know but that she referred to me. I was confused because I had no clue whatsoever who it could be.

I've had similar experiences.

. . . Then some critics will say a lot of body language is quite ambiguous and Miss Silvy accused it of not being Science, while at the same time others will say the opposite and that these studies is Science proving what's already common sense.

Miss Silvy is somewhat correct - it's not quatitative. People are unpredictable. One cannot look at a person and know what they are thinking at any given moment. One simply has to experience (interact with) another person over time. And even then the other person might be unpredictable. Trying to fit the behavior of another person to a model is futile.

 

[27Thousand]

Miss Silvy is somewhat correct - it's not quatitative. People are unpredictable. One cannot look at a person and know what they are thinking at any given moment. One simply has to experience (interact with) another person over time. And even then the other person might be unpredictable. Trying to fit the behavior of another person to a model is futile.

Something to consider, to put things into perspective it may not be quantitative science in the same way Physics or a test tube in chemistry are, but it's science in the same way that it uses the scientific method like the medical field does. I was looking at some of the follow-up studies, and if you have two groups of people who are exactly the same and you manipulate an independent variable and then measure a dependent variable, then there's a cause-effect relationship. Even if there's a confounding variable involved, something is still acting consistent here and can be further studied and put into use. The studies used actual statistical techniques to make their conclusions quantitative to see that there was statistical significance and effect sizes.

The problem is the effect size, etc, just stays in the peer-review journal articles. They don't usually try to find patterns across studies that deal with effect sizes/mathematical equations, but rather just look at patterns of the general principle (people say they care about the concept rather than details). I don't see equations in psychology textbooks (okay maybe just a few but not many), which makes it vague and doesn't say the other factors which come into play. My proposal is to do what Newton did and turn it more into a quantitative science, patterns across studies rather than just staying inside of the peer-review article itself (when they use null hypothesis testing). From what I've learned from those stats classes I took, from the actual Statistics Department rather than Social Science Department, whenever you have an actual correlation or effect size (even if they're weak) you can always create a mathematical equation to say a general probability to make predictions in a certain range (even if it's a weak equation). My plan is creating equations and then searching for patterns across studies, and then working from there to see how strong/weak these principles really are (by converting it into quantitative science format just like people will convert documents into PDF). It makes it more falsifiable, and thus better able to be refined/improved upon over time (like the natural sciences do). It's kind of like data mining, but there are some differences in my plans. Also in the the hard sciences they say the better something is at making predictions, the more likely it can be used for technology. They already use these principles to come up with predictions, but they don't usually come up with generalized mathematical equations across studies that they want to make testable. So maybe I could use that for my dating life! Also as I said in some of the other posts, I'm not planning on it only being an intellectual adventure but also combining a ton of practice/experience with it.

 

[Pyrrhus]

27Thousand, So she rejected you at that time and at that place... What is the problem?. You pick yourself up, and try again. People are unpredictable, she may have liked you still, but you may have come to strong. You don't typically ask people out that you don't really know that well. Maybe, you could have tried something casual like coffee?. Anyway, I just don't understand, why will you rather follow a Data Modeling approach for your dating life, instead of just going out more, and putting yourself in situations where you'll have to learn from experience. Everyone makes mistakes, the first times they go for the girl. It just does not always work out, but you should never lose sleep because of that.

A thing about data models, they are not as good as you think. You should search the literature just for knowledge. Look for a paper by Leo Breiman, "Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures".

 

[27Thousand]

27Thousand, So she rejected you at that time and at that place... What is the problem?. You pick yourself up, and try again. People are unpredictable, she may have liked you still, but you may have come to strong. You don't typically ask people out that you don't really know that well. Maybe, you could have tried something casual like coffee?. Anyway, I just don't understand, why will you rather follow a Data Modeling approach for your dating life, instead of just going out more, and putting yourself in situations where you'll have to learn from experience. Everyone makes mistakes, the first times they go for the girl. It just does not always work out, but you should never lose sleep because of that.

A thing about data models, they are not as good as you think. You should search the literature just for knowledge. Look for a paper by Leo Breiman, "Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures".

Thanks for the encouragement, but what if I need much more than that? Just like usually people use instruction and lots of practice to learn to play the piano rather than use "gut instinct", what if I have to use that strategy in learning to read and deal with women? If it makes me a better person?

I went to Google Scholar and downloaded the Leo Breiman article. It looks interesting, because of a statistics minor, and I'll read it. What I don't understand, if women are completely random then why even try talking to them because you'll get random results? Something I consider, aren't some men better reading women than others and consistent at it? At the most we could say it's difficult to study/measure scientifically/mathematically at this point of time in history (at least), but that doesn't mean there aren't any systematic patterns which occur. If I try looking at many data sets and using R statistical computing to try to visualize and figure them out, I may even see gaps in "unknown" areas, which may lead to future hypotheses in my mind to be tested using the Scientific Method. Maybe I could then experiment in person to figure those areas out after looking at plots, etc. Right now for this very purpose of wanting to look at data sets for dating, I'm looking at many different online manuals on R Statistical computing programming language and practicing what I learn in the program itself. For Statistics 5600, multivariate statistics, we had to use this program (in the other classes we used SAS program but you can't do as much with it's graphics, I've also used SPSS but that's just point and click so you don't have as much control). If it leads to innovation? Then maybe it could help me with my dating life?

Here's a question I have for you, is it just that you don't think we can discover the patterns which happen with women/flirting, or do you think we can but that it would be unnatural to go about relationships in that sort of way? Something I'm trying to figure out, throughout history didn't people say both of those about a lot of things that we can now control through technology? Don't "what if questions" lead to creative innovation?

 

[Monique]

It's not all about learning to read women, it's also about the women being able to read you! Don't take the fun out of flirting by approaching it in a scientific way, you'll risk sending out the wrong signals and being perceived as unnatural.

 

[GeorginaS]

Am I understanding this thread correctly, and this is nerds giving nerds dating advice?

 

[Moonbear]

If you need an equation just to figure out who to ask out on a date, don't you think you'll be in a heap of trouble trying to maintain a relationship if you still can't read social cues properly?

 

[Redbelly98]

Am I understanding this thread correctly, and this is nerds giving nerds dating advice?

I just noticed the OP did not show his attempt at solving the problem. Infractions for everyone who helped will be forthcoming

 

[27Thousand]

It's not all about learning to read women, it's also about the women being able to read you! Don't take the fun out of flirting by approaching it in a scientific way, you'll risk sending out the wrong signals and being perceived as unnatural.

I could be wrong, but wouldn't becoming better at reading people and whether they're actually interested make it so you can be yourself more? Rather than worry about impressing, wouldn't you focus on those who are interested in you and at the same time you're also interested in?

Also, from what I understand with body language, it's two way. If a woman smiles and leans forward, I read that if you pull away she may think the man isn't interested, and that the man should smile back or do something else to flirt if the woman acts this way. Since many on the other threads seemed to doubt that body language takes part in flirting, maybe the equation could demonstrate it and help one think about how it works. Basically many when looking at mathematical equations in Physics will try to make it conceptual how it works, and think about it. What if inventing equations does the same thing?

 

[27Thousand]

If you need an equation just to figure out who to ask out on a date, don't you think you'll be in a heap of trouble trying to maintain a relationship if you still can't read social cues properly?

What about learning how to read if people are interested in you? That one girl on Yahoo Answers who told me to flirt with a girl and see how she responds back as a way to get an idea if a girl is interested?

 

[Pyrrhus]

You're being too reactive, 27Thousand. You seem to think the approach to Women is to react to what they do. Don't worry about that, worry about YOU. Do you enjoy her company? Do you like her? etc..., instead of Does she like me? Does she enjoy spending time with me?, etc..

 

[GeorginaS]

You're being too reactive, 27Thousand. You seem to think the approach to Women is to react to what they do. Don't worry about that, worry about YOU. Do you enjoy her company? Do you like her? etc..., instead of Does she like me? Does she enjoy spending time with me?, etc..

The etc part is important. Cyclovenom has the right idea. Do you share common values? Are the same sorts of basic notions about life important to both of you? Do you feel comfortable with each other? Just relax and see how it feels to be around that person.

Don't stick pins through their wings and tack them down to styrofoam board and stare at them through a magnifying glass. If you're looking at someone and analysing their every move and breath they take, you're going to do nothing but make them feel uncomfortable. You're not really present at that moment; you're all wound up in your own head. The person you're with will sense that but have no clue what's up. Body language is there and real and all of that, yes. But you respond to it on a subconscious level. Truly. Trying to calculate the whole thing just makes the situation awkward and weird.

 

[Monique]

I once dated someone who was compulsive in overanalyzing everything. Besides finding it weird, it was also interesting because it was so out of the ordinary. Finally I told him that he should let go a little, that it is not normal to analyze everything obsessively. You know what he did? He went to a psychologist to have all the tests taken that they had to offer him, he came back to me with the test results. There was nothing wrong with him, he had all the tests with him to show me that..

 

[JasonRox]

I once dated someone who was compulsive in overanalyzing everything. Besides finding it weird, it was also interesting because it was so out of the ordinary. Finally I told him that he should let go a little, that it is not normal to analyze everything obsessively. You know what he did? He went to a psychologist to have all the tests taken that they had to offer him, he came back to me with the test results. There was nothing wrong with him, he had all the tests with him to show me that..

Did he have a graph of the sex life too?

With it's peaks and downs, analyzing the correlation of alcohol with sex, food with sex, and so on...

Jeez...

How long did that last?

 

[Redbelly98]

What about learning how to read if people are interested in you? That one girl on Yahoo Answers who told me to flirt with a girl and see how she responds back as a way to get an idea if a girl is interested?

That actually sounds like a good idea, get some real experience and practice flirting and see what happens.

 

[GeorginaS]

That actually sounds like a good idea, get some real experience and practice flirting and see what happens.

Sorry, but, "practice flirting"? That's distinguished from "actual flirting" how?

You think in your mind, "Okay, now I'm going to tilt my head to the left and look directly into her eyes while she's talking. And then I'll ask her if she's pleased that I'm being so attentive. If she says 'no' then I'll take out my note pad, mark that down, and explain to her that that wasn't a 'real' thing, just a 'practise' thing and so not to take it seriously as something I do for real. Unless she likes it."

 

[DanP]

Enjoy:P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPQSMdUF5b8&feature=PlayList&p=78CF843E75D3C1B2&index=30

 

[Redbelly98]

Sorry, but, "practice flirting"? That's distinguished from "actual flirting" how?

Who said anything about there being a distiniction?

 

[DanP]

OP, start to think of yourself as the God's gift to women. Delusion is sometimes highly useful.

 

[GeorginaS]

OP, start to think of yourself as the God's gift to women. Delusion is sometimes highly useful.

Delusion sometimes is, yes. The first part, though, no, absolutely not helpful at all.

 

[DanP]

Delusion sometimes is, yes. The first part, though, no, absolutely not helpful at all.

Are you sure ?

 

[GeorginaS]

Are you sure ?

If you're attempting to get involved with sane women, yes, I'm sure.

 

[DanP]

If you're attempting to get involved with sane women, yes, I'm sure.

No man or women is sane :P

 

[JasonRox]

If you're attempting to get involved with sane women, yes, I'm sure.

Yeah right, I find most girls are easy to fool.

 

[GeorginaS]

Yeah right, I find most girls are easy to fool.

Now see? I don't even necessarily insist that I'm entirely sane, however that particular attitude isn't the least bit attractive or appealing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Delusion sometimes is, yes. The first part, though, no, absolutely not helpful at all.

There are guys who act like God's gift to women, without actually believing it deep down, who are incredibly obnoxious.

Guys who authentically believe it wear the delusion in complete comfort and security, and don't render themselves obnoxious asserting and defending it. They read as calm, confident, warm, charming, but a tad remote, and you'll often see a glint of amusement in their eyes, as if, inside, they just can't take you, or anything, really seriously. This drives girls nuts. They'll go to great lengths to penetrate that "God's Gift" look of amusement in the attempt to be taken seriously, mostly in the form of trying to please the guy.

Unfortunately, it's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths.

 

[DaveC426913]

No man or women is sane :P

"The majority is always sane."^{[1 para 8]}

 

[GeorginaS]

There are guys who act like God's gift to women, without actually believing it deep down, who are incredibly obnoxious.

Guys who authentically believe it wear the delusion in complete comfort and security, and don't render themselves obnoxious asserting and defending it. They read as calm, confident, warm, charming, but a tad remote, and you'll often see a glint of amusement in their eyes, as if, inside, they just can't take you, or anything, really seriously. This drives girls nuts. They'll go to great lengths to penetrate that "God's Gift" look of amusement in the attempt to be taken seriously, mostly in the form of trying to please the guy.

Unfortunately, it's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths.

That's brilliant, zoobyshoe. Both incisive and insightful.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys who authentically believe it wear the delusion in complete comfort and security, and don't render themselves obnoxious asserting and defending it. They read as calm, confident, warm, charming, but a tad remote, and you'll often see a glint of amusement in their eyes, as if, inside, they just can't take you, or anything, really seriously. This drives girls nuts. They'll go to great lengths to penetrate that "God's Gift" look of amusement in the attempt to be taken seriously, mostly in the form of trying to please the guy.
Unfortunately, it's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths.

omg, you've just described my brother. Not toward women, he just excudes confidence and success in general.

But he's no sociopath.

 

[Surreal Ike]

The best thing is if you run into her away from your house, then you can come up to her and say "Hey." and then wait for her to look at you and then say "I think maybe you live across the street from me" and then maybe she will recognize you and maybe not, and you can tell her that you sometimes see her on the bus, and ask her questions about that ("how much does it cost?" "do people tend to have conversations or is it mostly quiet?") and talk about random places in your neighborhood (especially good if she's new, then you can tell her about whatever the most interesting places are).

If you can't run into her somewhere else, things will be more difficult. You could just go across the street and say you're new to the neighborhood and ask something about the neighborhood (e.g. where are interesting places to go friday night, or anything odd you might have seen), or say that you saw her waiting for the bus, and you couldn't let the opportunity pass by, and if she would like to eat lunch with you some time. The second one will be better if you're knocking on her door because people don't usually make casual conversation with their neighbors. Well I guess you could make a good casual conversation based on the fact that you're new to the neighborhood.

A third approach is to find an interesting place to go that's in the same direction she's going and wait for the same bus she does. Figure out something in advance to ask her when she waits with you. Start by saying "hi" or "good afternoon" or whatever, then wait for her response, and then have something planned out in advance like "Where are you off to" or "What's the story behind <insert item of clothing>" or "How long have you lived around here" and then when she answers, say you're new (living with relatives) and then ask her some kind of question about the neighborhood (do you like it? Do you tend to get any interesting neighborhood disruptions? Do kids play in the neighborhood? Where did you live before here? Before coming to live with my relatives, I lived in <insert place>. <Insert story about inserted place.> Going to college? What's your major?)

Basically you want to be strategic in setting up some sort of casual encounter that seems minimally unusual and you want to have things to talk about. If necessary make a list and then come up with an acronym that will help you with the list. E.g. PHYSICS for Parents, Household Repairs, Your Childhood, or whatever. Talking about things in the news is good too, or the weather, or a book you've been reading if you do it in a way that a normal person can understand.

Also confidence is useful. Since screwing up with this girl will be a little bit painful (you'll see her every so often and it will be an unpleasant reminder) you might want to level up and practice talking to strangers that you don't care about the opinions of so you will be less nervous when you talk to this girl. If you really want to level up you could take an acting class or a storytelling class or join Toastmasters or a public speaking class, but if you do these things, do them for your own sake (you want to improve your communication skills, and seeing this girl just reminded you that it would be worth boning up. It's not good to go through a lot of effort just for someone you haven't even met yet.)

Also you can ask your friends for more advice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's brilliant, zoobyshoe. Both incisive and insightful.

Thank you kindly!

 

[DanP]

Guys who authentically believe it wear the delusion in complete comfort and security, and don't render themselves obnoxious asserting and defending it. They read as calm, confident, warm, charming, but a tad remote, and you'll often see a glint of amusement in their eyes, as if, inside, they just can't take you, or anything, really seriously. This drives girls nuts. They'll go to great lengths to penetrate that "God's Gift" look of amusement in the attempt to be taken seriously, mostly in the form of trying to please the guy.

Unfortunately, it's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths.

Whats renders them sociopaths ? Their continuous success ?

 

[27Thousand]

That actually sounds like a good idea, get some real experience and practice flirting and see what happens.

Experience is good. Here's something that you may want to consider, if someone's learning a foreign language, experience is extremely necessary, however book knowledge/intellectualizing it will help one to know what to look for in the foreign language when trying to learn from experience. By looking at graphs, scatter plots, exponential or whatever type of equations my computer program may come up with (I'm teaching myself R a computer programming language for Statistics), etc, will help me understand how things work. Then I can know what to look for when having real life experience.


Something you may want to consider, I read in a book that if a woman smiles at you and you make eye contact and smile back, she will be much more likely to be friendly with you, compared to if you avoid eye contact with her. I tried that from a book and it worked! How do you explain why a book was able to teach me that, but just jumping into the deep end never did? Don't you think some may have trouble with social skills in the same way some have dyslexia/learning disorders? And my method I'm thinking of incorporates plenty of real life experience into the mix; it's just that it's not jumping into the deep end and nothing else.

 

[27Thousand]

I once dated someone who was compulsive in overanalyzing everything.

As far as being able to make equations for behavior, check this out from the U.S. National Institutes of Health!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472627/figure/jeab-85-02-02-f02/"

The link and graph have two equations to measure how the strength of behavior reinforcement is affected with time delay. Why not make some equations for reading if women are interested?

Below is extremely useful knowledge for Science and Technology, and I want to use it for flirting by using creativity to create equations from data sets:
Predictive Modeling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_modeling"
Predictive Analytics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_analytics"
Newton had a goal of mathematical innovation. He took ideas which existed and combined them in new and useful ways. Maybe the same could be done for flirting equations?

To help me do it if I can convince peer-review authors to give me their data sets, here's open source software R Statistical Computing, a programming language for Statistics, so that you have much more control over Statistics and Graphics than something like SPSS could ever do. I'm trying to read as much as I can about it, with tons of practice http://www.r-project.org/"

 

[27Thousand]

So mmmm what are you say,
Mmm that mathematical equations for flirting only mean well,
Well of course they do,
Mmmm what are you say,
Mmmm that equations are all for the best,
Of course they are,

I know that some will say flirting equations aren't clever,
But equations and flirting were meant to be together,
So tell me PhysicsForums,

Mmmm what are you say,
Mmm that mathematical equations for flirting only mean well,
Well of course they do,
Mmmm what are you say,
Mmmm that it's all for the best,
Of course it is

 

[zoobyshoe]

Whats renders them sociopaths ? Their continuous success ?

No. "Sociopath" is not a pejorative term for a guy who is successful with women. The hallmark of a sociopath is that they have no conscience:

Sociopaths are people without a conscience. They don't have the normal empathy the rest of us take for granted. They don't feel affection. They don't care about others. But most of them are good observers, and they have learned how to mimic feelings of affection and empathy remarkably well. (Bold type by me, zooby.)

Most people with a conscience find it very difficult to even imagine what it would be like to be without one. Combine this with a sociopath's efforts to blend in, and the result is that most sociopaths go undetected.

Because they go undetected, they wreak havoc on their family, on people they work with, and on anyone who tries to be their friend. A sociopath deceives, takes what he (or she) wants, and hurts people without any remorse. Sociopaths don't feel guilty. They don't feel sorry for what they've done. They go through life taking what they want and giving nothing back. They manipulate and deceive and convincingly lie without the slightest second thought. They leave a path of confusion and upset in their wake.

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html

In the eyes of girls the worst "crime" a man can commit is to be emotionally needy; to be insecure, to need the girls to validate him. A sociopath is the opposite of that: a man who is, deep down, completely unmoved by, and indifferent to, their opinion of him. At the same time he seems very attentive and charming on the surface, they can sense he is ultimately remote, just doesn't care.

At first they're delighted by this refreshing, non-needy man who is so lavish with attention, but then something starts to bother them: a deep itch to break through his inner indifference, to be taken seriously. This itch escalates to something obsessive: the need to get his validation. But the more they try to impress him, to please him, the more amused he looks, and the less seriously he seems to take them inside.

Once the sociopath senses the hook is set, he'll start casting himself as the hapless victim of circumstances beyond his control needing a bailout (money, goods, shelter, or whatever he happens to want) and he'll keep that up as long as he can get away with it, thoroughly reveling in the fact he's got someone under his thumb. No sympathy, empathy, or remorse involved.


There’s the kernel of a lesson for nerds in the story of the girl’s attraction to the sociopath, which could be stated many ways, but here’s one: girls are attracted to guys who are warm and attentive on the surface but who give off the unspoken vibe they feel utterly neutral toward the girl. Why? The guy’s not needy, doesn’t need to be validated. By the same logic the guy who believes he is God’s Gift to women is attractive for the same reason: not needy.

 

[rootX]

I am not sure how one can categorize and define sociopath with so many specific details..

 

[DanP]

I asked how you render them "sociopaths" as a group. So let me rephrase. From what you determined that the whole category have no conscience ?

No. "Sociopath" is not a pejorative term for a guy who is successful with women. The hallmark of a sociopath is that they have no conscience:



http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html

In the eyes of girls the worst "crime" a man can commit is to be emotionally needy; to be insecure, to need the girls to validate him. A sociopath is the opposite of that: a man who is, deep down, completely unmoved by, and indifferent to, their opinion of him. At the same time he seems very attentive and charming on the surface, they can sense he is ultimately remote, just doesn't care.

At first they're delighted by this refreshing, non-needy man who is so lavish with attention, but then something starts to bother them: a deep itch to break through his inner indifference, to be taken seriously. This itch escalates to something obsessive: the need to get his validation. But the more they try to impress him, to please him, the more amused he looks, and the less seriously he seems to take them inside.

Once the sociopath senses the hook is set, he'll start casting himself as the hapless victim of circumstances beyond his control needing a bailout (money, goods, shelter, or whatever he happens to want) and he'll keep that up as long as he can get away with it, thoroughly reveling in the fact he's got someone under his thumb. No sympathy, empathy, or remorse involved.


There’s the kernel of a lesson for nerds in the story of the girl’s attraction to the sociopath, which could be stated many ways, but here’s one: girls are attracted to guys who are warm and attentive on the surface but who give off the unspoken vibe they feel utterly neutral toward the girl. Why? The guy’s not needy, doesn’t need to be validated. By the same logic the guy who believes he is God’s Gift to women is attractive for the same reason: not needy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I asked how you render them "sociopaths" as a group. So let me rephrase. From what you determined that the whole category have no conscience ?

Eh?

...

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not seeing how someone who believes they are god's gift to women is a sociopath either. An egomaniac? Sure. A narcissist? Likely. Sociopath? That seems to be stretching it, and even contradicts the notion that they really believe they are so great and fully confident in that role, since the sociopath only ACTS the role, doesn't actually feel or believe it.

Though, I WOULD be concerned that someone who thinks he can form relationships based on mathematical formulae rather than understanding normal social cues just might be a sociopath. Or, at the least, it seems very creepy.

I have a simple formula...the as the equations you try to apply to selecting a mate increases, your chances of obtaining any mate approaches zero.

 

[27Thousand]

Though, I WOULD be concerned that someone who thinks he can form relationships based on mathematical formulae rather than understanding normal social cues just might be a sociopath. Or, at the least, it seems very creepy.

I have a simple formula...the as the equations you try to apply to selecting a mate increases, your chances of obtaining any mate approaches zero.

Sociopaths don't lack social skills, they're actually quite good at reading people and that's how they thrive as predators. On the other extreme side of the continuum, I think I myself may have some troubles reading body language. I read in a book that if a woman smiles, if the man makes eye contact and smiles back she's a lot more likely to be friendly than if he avoids making eye contact with her. I read that in a book a few years ago and tried applying it. I discovered in the last few years that when a woman smiles, making eye contact back and smiling seems to have her act more friendly towards me! I wasn't able to ever get that from what others on this thread call "experience", but rather from scholarly research.

Moonbear, putting yourself in my shoes how would you feel if you were in my situation? I want to be myself, so being able to read women and know if they're interested will allow me to focus instead on those who are interested in me for being me, rather than having to worry about impressing them. Being oneself is important.

Also, I think my own body language may be slightly not normal, maybe some are born differently in body posture and not expressive in facial expressions, so finding equations for how I'm supposed to move my face, body posture, etc in social situations may help me relax because I'd want them to look past that and at my personality instead.

So what do you have to say about that? Aren't they worthwhile concerns?