mediocre relationships are easier to start

In a discussion about science and innovations, a person named John Sidles (his homepage) made the following comment:

In particular, [source] describes an example peer-review failure because “The economists of the time felt that it would violate their methodology to consider a problem, such as the role of asymmetric information, that was out of its traditional focus.”
“Out of our traditional focus” is a very common reason for rejection, not only in academic publishing, but also in business, and politics (and if you think about it, even romance).
I think it was Marvin Minsky, in Society of Mind, who pointed out how very necessary it is, that human cognition has strong censorship mechanisms, operating largely on the preconscious level, that reject ideas that don’t match preconceptions.
This is no bad thing. But the paradoxical result is that it is (sometimes) more difficult for a good idea to find an audience than a mediocre one.
For much the same reason, mediocre relationships often are easier to initiate than good ones … with the result that it’s all too easy to find yourself embracing dull ideas *and* dull romantic partners.

I think this is very insightful! True and important at the same time.

It's easy to hook up with people who are like ourselves. But it's much more rewarding to be with people who are different from ourselves! (As long as they share the same basic values, of course.)

That's why the ambitious person will not stop when things get a little difficult in dating. Indeed, if compatibility at a profound level exists, more work in the beginning comes with a promise for a much higher reward. A relationship that widens your horizon! Instead of getting stuck where you are...

needs vs. desires

Recently I used the phrase "your personal needs and desires" in a speech about how to find a romantic partner. I think that those two innocent-looking words do indeed touch on a very profound subject in dating on which I want to elaborate in this post.
First of all there is a great divide in that a person's needs can be understood to mean all the things necessary to make that person happy, while her desires are the things she is striving for, admiring, because she thinks that they will make her happy.
People always want to be inspired, have high goals, find something of special value. May it be somebody really good looking, or somebody really social, or somebody really successful in his life projects (career or hobbies). That's something we look up to, or desire.
Now, unfortunately what we think we need and what we really need are often very different. Sometimes it can even be opposites and we make ourselves unhappy until we realize it. Or sometimes, our needs encompass things which we never really thought about and don't know how important they are.

We form desires when we grow up, but we find out about our needs when we grow old. Those people who learn about their needs before they grow old, will have the power to make themselves truly happy.

But apart from the know/don't-know divide, there's another dichotomy which is described by needs vs. desires. This dichotomy is about two poles of attraction which both have to be strong in order for a person to fall in love. The desires are what makes their opposite noteworthy, admirable, valuable, desireable, they focus on success, talents, strenghts, looks, money, brains, things that the person offers to you, while the needs on the other hand are a counterbalance are about things that refer more to you than your opposite: will the person give you comfort when you need it, will they respect you, will you be important to them, are you even good enough for them?
Our desires spur us on to date out of our league, while the needs will remind us to be realistic and look for people who are just good to us.
A person that only represents our desires would be considered way out of their league by most and they would never try to ask them out or would be quite suspicious about serious intentions when asked out by them. A person that mostly represents our needs, however, would be considered as just a friend by most people and they would say that there's just "something" lacking to make the relationship a romantic one.
I think there is much more to say about this, since many aspects of dating can be explained by it. Let's leave that for later posts.


This post is dedicated to L., S., and Y. for the inspiration and to K. for the encouragement.

so you think on-line dating is for losers?

When in a typical conversation among young, single, awesome people, somebody mentions the typical belief that on-line dating is for people who can't succeed in the real world and that he would never want to hook up with somebody so desperate to try on-line dating, I would normally just take the remark as something often heard before and that also makes sense.
But since our conversation continued to be about dating and then I was left with the homework of evaluating dating applications on Facebook, I got to thinking about this obvious statement and soon realized that, in fact, it is totally wrong!
Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, on-line dating can actually be much harder than making a move in the real world! Of course this depends a lot on somebody's situation in life, but in many situations (and especially in school and at university) there are lots of opportunities off-line and getting to know people is much easier. Basically you can talk with anybody about anything and they will be nice to you and enjoy talking. Even better, you can mostly hang out in groups, never have to stay alone with somebody you are feeling shy towards, so that when you are suddenly out of things to say, there won't be awkward silence. Also, you can do lots of fun activities with friends (and acquaintances who you want to be friends with) and while everybody is happy enjoying the activity, you slowly and gently get to know each other.
Compare this to on-line dating: most people you meet will judge you as a potential date and compare you to hundreds of others out there. As a consequence, at least half the people you'll contact will simply ignore you! (I am telling it from a male point of view, females have other issues to face, but on top of that, sometimes get ignored, too!)
Talking in the real world is just talking from person to person, but in an on-line dating communication everything you say is judged according to your opposite's desires for a date (which often are contradictory in themselves, making it impossible to comply) and if you don't meet a certain threshold, they'll just politely tell you so, and you are not supposed to ever talk to them again. Sometimes the same already happens just because they've met somebody more promising (who they'll maybe also stop contacting after a very short while). On-line dating sites have this aura of catalog shopping for people and that often hurts.
But this is not to say, that it on-line dating can't be fun. After all, there are some relaxed people out there, who are truly interested in meeting other people first and let romantic interest (or friendship) grow by itself. On-line dating can be great for people who like to chat on-line (for example because they are not as good at face to face conversation with strangers), it can also be great for people who prefer one-on-one outings to the movies, theatre, or events with new people.

Finally, to get back my original point, it's true that there are some desperate people on dating sites, but believe it or not I have also met desperate women in the off-line world. After all, it's just a matter of preference and life-style.

Disclaimer: I will not say here, how much experience with on-line dating I have, nor for what purpose I have done it (finding love, making friends, curiosity about this new means of social interaction or whatever other reason you can imagine). Suffice it to say, that I enjoy a lot learning about people's thoughts and ways, and I have learned a lot on-line as well as off-line. And I am still learning. Comments welcome!

we always knew it

study report: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/mere%20presence.pdf

quote: Men’s and women’s mate preferences impose on each a unique set of adaptive problems that must be solved when judging the desirability of prospective mates. One potentially revealing source of information about an individual’s desirability as a romantic partner is con-
tained in the decisions made by same-sex others. The present studies predicted that men’s and women’s desirability assessments would be affected in opposite ways when target persons were depicted with members of the target’s opposite sex. Study 1 (N = 847) documented that women rated men more desirable when shown surrounded by women than when shown alone or with other men (a desirability enhancement effect). In sharp contrast, men rated women less desirable when shown surrounded by men than when shown alone or with women (a desirability diminution effect). Study 2 (N = 627) demonstrated similar sexually divergent effects for estimates of the desirability of same-sex competitors.

Yellow Fever

Guy's perspective:


Girl's perspective:

Absolute Beginner - Beziehungsunerfahrene

Heute möchte ich über etwas schreiben, zu dem ich viel zu sagen habe und wichtiges zu sagen habe (zumindest erscheint es mir so), aber ich habe nicht wie sonst einen zehn-Punkte-Plan, eine feste Struktur... ich stürze mich also einfach mal hinein, ok?

"Absoluter Beginner" ist ein Wort, das ich im Usenet gefunden habe, bzw. in Web-Foren, wo heutzutage viel mehr diskutiert wird. Es bezeichnet erwachsene Menschen, die noch eine eine Liebesbeziehung hatten (und demzufolge auch noch nie Sex). Ich finde das Wort schon an sich total abwertend, weil "absolut" klingt so grenzenlos, dabei ist man ja nur in einer ganz speziellen Hinsicht ein Anfänger.

Es geht also um Beziehungsunerfahrene Menschen, ein leicht bürokratisches Wort, aber zumindest ist es weniger Sex-bezogen als Jungfrau oder Jungmann zu sagen. Und da wären wir schon beim ersten Problem: oftmals werden diese Menschen gefragt "Was? Du hattest noch nie Sex?" und oftmals schreiben sie selbst von sich, dass das ein wichtiges Ding in ihrem Leben ist "noch nie Sex gehabt zu haben". Aber ist es nicht eigentlich viel wichtiger jemand zu lieben und geliebt zu werden, Seelen aneinander reiben und nicht nur Körper?

Allein dazu könnte man schön eine Menge schreiben, aber ganz andere Aspekte kommen noch hinzu. In den Newsgroups und Internetforen bekommen diese Menschen oft Ratschläge, wie man sich an Frauen 'ranmacht bzw. sich von Männern anmachen lässt. (Die Asymmetrie wäre schon wieder ein Thema für sich!) Wenn dann so ein Beziehungsunerfahrener versucht die Ratschläge zu befolgen, Rückmeldung gibt und nachfragt, dann ergeben sich lange Diskussionen und wenn dann am Ende er sich zur Zufriedenheit aller Beteiligten verhält, die richtige Einstellung hat usw. und es trotzdem nicht klappt (wie auch -- in so kurzer Zeit?), dann schreibt vielleicht jemand der ganz erfahrenen Gurus im Forum: "suche nicht, sondern lasse Dich finden". Gut Ding will Weile haben. Die oder der Richtige muss erst kommen. Aha! Und was, wenn bisher die oder der Richtige einfach noch nicht gekommen ist!? Vielleicht sind diese Menschen ja nur beziehungsunerfahren, weil sie sich bisher nur einfach noch nie in jemanden verliebt haben, der zu ihnen passt? (Und natürlich können sie dann noch keinen Sex gehabt haben, es sei denn, man möchte sie zu Sex ohne Liebe zwingen!)

Drittens: Beziehungsanfängertum wird natürlich dann erst interessant, wenn man schon "etwas älter" ist und über die Frage des genauen Alters kann man sicher auch vortrefflich streiten. Ist man mit 18 schon unnormal, wenn man noch nie .... Oder mit 20 ... ? Wo ist der Durchschnitt? Und was sagt schon so ein verdammter Durchschnitt aus, wo doch sowieso die Hälfte drüber liegt (und die Hälfte drunter)!
Und hat sich schon mal jemand gefragt, was mit einem Beziehungsunerfahrenen passiert, wenn er sich verliebt und auch geliebt wird und eine richtige schöne Beziehung hat? (Die zudem noch, statistisch gesehen, länger hält als bei anderen Menschen.) Das ist er ja -- ganz plötzlich und ohne wesentliche Veränderung seines Charakters, seines Ich -- gar kein Beziehungsunerfahrener mehr. Aber was hat dann so ein Begriff für eine Bedeutung, dass man Menschen danach klassifiziert ("ja, bei Beziehungsunerfahrenen wie Dir ..."), wenn das ganze sich so schnell und einfach in Luft auflösen kann. Was sagt denn dann der Begriff überhaupt noch über einen Menschen aus, wenn er so schnell verschwindet? (Natürlich nicht so von einer Sekunde auf die andere, aber schon zufällig, unerwartet, wenn eben der oder die Richtige kommt und man sich demjenigen öffnen will...)
Das Wort Beziehungsunerfahren ist also totale Froschperspektive oder Tunnelblick oder wie auch immer nur auf einen Moment bezogen. Wenn man aber das Gesamtleben solcher Menschen anschaut, dann stellt man fest, dass ihre erste Liebe nur einfach mal später stattfand als bei den meisten anderen -- global gesehen und langfristig sind es also einfach nur Spätzünder! Man kann sich sogar vorstellen, dass bei den sogenannten Problemfällen der Beziehungsunerfahrenen Menschen eigentlich gar nicht so viel substanziell anders ist, als bei anderen: nur die erste Liebe ist eben später!
Klar, sie fällt dadurch in eine andere Lebensphase. Mit fünfundzwanzig oder fünfunddreißig läuft es nicht mehr so wie mit fünfzehn. Aber was ändert das an der Liebe?
Der große Unterschied besteht doch eigentlich in der gesellschaftlichen Akzeptanz: "was? In dem Alter noch nie...?" hört man oft sagen. Und was müssen sich die armen Menschen dabei denken? Dass ihnen etwas fehlt, dass sie unvollständig sind, sonderbar, minderwertig. Kein Wunder, dass sich dabei Minderwertigkeitskomplexe einstellen!

Dabei muss man es nur anders sehen:

• Beziehungsunerfahrenen fehlt nichts. Sie entwickeln ihr Bedürnis nach Liebe nur langsamer, sind Spätzünder.
• Der oder die Richtige ist einfach noch nicht aufgetaucht.
• Sex ohne Liebe ist sowieso Scheiße, also was soll die Frage, ob jemand schon .. oder nicht.

Liebe Menschen! Spätzünder sind statistisch nicht so häufig und man erkennt sie auch erst, wenn man sie schon ein bisschen besser kennt. Dann ist man oft verwundert. Diese Gedanken sollen helfen, Spätzünder besser zu verstehen.
Wechselt einfach mal die Perspektive!

Natürlich ist es nur mit dem Perspektiv-Wechsel nicht getan. Viele Spätzünder haben es schon schwer, erste Erfahrungen zu sammeln. Mit der Liebe ist das leicht, das kommt von alleine, aber mit dem Flirt, dem Kennenlernen, das ist schon schwerer, wenn man als Erwachsener nachholen muss, was andere als Kind schon gelernt haben. (Wie Fahrrad fahren?)
Hinzu kommt, dass einige Spätzünder auch andere Schwierigkeiten haben, wie zum Beispiel Asperger-Syndrom (Schwierigkeiten bei der Kommunikation) oder eine besonders hohe Sensibilität.
Und außerdem kann natürlich der gesellschaftliche "Sonderstatus", dass man eben anders ist, wirklich sehr schädigend sein, gerade wenn es von anderen nicht akzeptiert wird, wenn die Umgebung Maßstäbe anlegt, die auf den Menschen gar nicht passen!
Darauf können wir aber alle achten, dass wir die Spätzünder respektieren und ihnen die Zeit lassen, die sie brauchen! Ein Baby kommt immer nach ungefähr neun Monaten, aber die Liebe, die es erschaffen hat, die kann sehr lange brauchen!

Wenn man bedenkt, wie schön die erste Liebe für viele Spätzünder ist und wie lange sie hält, so müsste man statt "absolute Beginner" eigentlich sagen: "absolute Genießer". Nur dass der Genuss von der großen Gleichmacherei so oft vermießt wird...

Everybody is an individual.
The "age at first love relationship" is just a number.

Das Warten auf die Liebe lohnt sich in jedem Fall.

What does "the free world" mean to me?

Hello world,

Surely, you have once read or heard something about matriarchy, something like indigenous peoples wearing loin cloths and living in a form of society where the women are boss of a family.
And surely, in the current debate about the modernisation of Islam, you have heard about polygamic families, which means that one man has several wives. (And not the contrary!)
And for one last example, everyone in the western world knows from the movies or from novels, how our society has been only a couple of decades ago, where sometimes parents chose their children's bride, where divorce was a sin that didn't exist as a word, where sex was a service from a wife to her husband, almost on a level with doing the dishes and raising the children.

What I mean by "free world" is that we live in a society, where role models still exist, but there are so many to choose from! There are people who decide not to have sex before marriage, there are people who decide that sex and love are quite separate, there are people cheating their partner and people living in an "open relationship", and there is something like a majority of people who --if there biography is seen in retrospect-- have engaged in what sociologists call "serial monogamy" which means so much as being faithful to one partner until they break up and start over with someone else.

Of course, society and culture still impose a lot of behaviors, much of the traditional legal rules have been revised but some are still in place and there is even a new trend of governments to "subsidize" the raising of children in ways that encourage some form of living together over others. And of course, there's a strong influence of the media, selling texts and pictures that transport attitudes and live styles. But still, I think, people in the western world are quite free, nowadays, in the question of with whom to share their lives, with whom to share their secrets, their intimacy and what to give on to their offspring.

There's a freedom for people to decide, which is their way to love and to live, independent of other's expectations, following their inner voice. And this freedom allows us to observe, to look at people and to try getting a glimpse of what are their true desires and needs, which they are following now. Most people are unable to state their needs clearly, instead we say "we have to try out things" and when we are older we speak of "the experiences we have made".

What I want to do in this blog is to take a broader view and to ask:
what do human beings really need from love?
and how can they get it?

You are invited to join the quest.. for truth and happiness!