End of year thoughts

[inbloomer]

I’ve been thinking some things over and reading around, including Paul Graham’s famous essay “Why nerds are unpopular”, which I had seen before but came back to.

The key point that’s crystallising in my mind is that life’s universal limiting factors are time and energy. You spend a third of each day in bed. Then, no matter who you are, you have lots of mandatory tasks and chores that eat into the other two thirds. On the other side of the scales, to be really good at anything takes a lot of time and effort. There’s all the research about 10,000 hours – it’s not an exact quota but the basic idea is correct. There’s also a famous study done in the 1950s about Cuban cigar rollers – you’d assume that skill level in a relatively trivial task would rise quickly at first then plateau, but actually it continues rising over years and years of experience.

What that means is, it’s possible to become brilliant at one thing. I think it’s just possible to become brilliant at two things, especially if you start with a lot of talent and privilege in one of them. But beyond that, there’s a hard limit for how thinly you can spread your time and energy.

Everyone kind of loves the idea of the polymath, the Renaissance man who can turn their hand to anything and be great at it. Many fictional heroes are that, e.g. James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Lara Croft. Over and over, we fall for politicians who’ve had success in other fields or who appear multi-talented (Barack Obama shooting hoops, Boris Johnson quoting Latin) rather than nerdy economic specialists. And a common criticism of people who struggle with dating is that they’re looking for a partner who’s a rocket scientist by day and underwear model by night.

If you look closely at the historical examples of polymaths, many were frauds, or they took credit for other people’s work, or at least it’s difficult to pinpoint what they actually achieved in their secondary fields. Quite a few abandoned something they were brilliant at for something they were mediocre in, e.g. Michael Jordan playing baseball.

Basically, if you take on too many things, either the quality drops across the board, or you make yourself ill trying to maintain it, or you cheat. That’s why good leaders and managers delegate rather than trying to do everything themselves.

In the narrow, small-pond world of high school, I was a polymath. In nearly every subject I was either the best or in the top few, I was reasonably popular and even quite good-looking. That’s always been a hard act to follow in the wider, more complex adult world. I suspect I’ve always kind of been looking for a polymath partner, in a way that’s quite difficult to change because that is what I find most attractive – the cognitive dissonance created when someone very nice and highly able can be just a little bit edgy.

I went to an elite university, and was told beforehand that it would be an ideal place to find partners. But in reality, relatively few couples formed there. To be blunt, an awful lot of the female students were below average attractiveness. I never really understood why, but actually it’s obvious. Because it was elite, the workload pressures were real and huge, on top of pressures to handle daily life away from home and to start preparing a career path. To be attractive, not to a Hollywood superhero or fashion supermodel extreme but just to a normal level of “hot”, still takes a lot of capacity that they simply didn’t have to spare. Could those women have put a lot more into diet, exercise, clothes, make-up, social skills etc.? Probably, if their life depended on it, but then their degree would suffer – and having worked so hard to get there, it wasn’t an appealing trade-off. Those who did do all that were mainly ones who had big cushions of class privilege, meaning finding a partner on their own level was actually more important than the degree.

As people on here know, I’ve kept going through a pattern of meeting someone who initially seems really keen and promising, it grows into an intense friendship that’s almost but not quite romantic, then, after months to years, she goes cold and distant and claims it was all a miscommunication. It’s always left an unpleasant taste in my mouth – at the very least, that she was still pretending everything was great at a point when she knew she was going to bail. It’s also always been a very difficult thing to get any understanding or sympathy on: back in DNL comments days, at best I was offered the all-purpose “women are socialised not to give offence” excuse. Yet there have been plenty of women who rejected me in ways that I can’t fault, leaving no sense that I’d been played. These were different.

I suspect now that I was attracted to these women because they appeared to be polymaths: highly intelligent, lots of hobbies and interests, and up with fashion and flirting skills as well. But actually, they were frauds. Of course, I’m sure they saw themselves not as that but as “too nice” – as people who didn’t like to disappoint or let anyone down. At least some of them would understandably have had deep fears of abandonment. But that meant they’d developed a way of socialising that’s effectively cold-reading: saying what the audience wants to hear and parroting back enough to give a superficial impression of passion for and expertise in whatever the current subject is. So many times, I had what seemed like deep and fully two-way intellectual conversations with these women, yet when I look back nearly all the content came from me not them. That explains the odd feeling I kept getting, and also why they were never going to let me get that close to them, as they knew they’d get found out eventually. And definitely, at the point they did start breaking away, they were beginning to distance themselves from things they’d previously claimed to be keen on and good at.

At the moment I’m finding it very hard to see any way forward on dating. But if there is one, it’s maybe around recalibrating my expectations. Like, a partner who is brilliant at one particular thing (sport, acting, art, cooking, whatever) and is fairly attractive as well might be possible, but then that’s it: a realistic expectation would be that she’s average or below at everything else. Of course, many people find true happiness with partners who are average across the board. I can’t write that off as a possibility for me, but I have tended to get on best with people who are a bit unusual and exceptional in some way, finding I just don’t have much in common with the most down-the-middle average people.

[Datelessman]

I think many of us reflect on things at the end of a year. Your experiences and tastes certainly seem to reflect your experience. Incidentally, the study which brought us the 10,000 hours metric from Malcolm Gladwell's OUTLIERS is itself imperfect. Even research at the time would have told Gladwell that many "masters" have attained their craft in less time than 10,000 hours.

I kind of had a weird upbringing in that I was told ever since childhood by my mother and various teachers that I was "brilliant" or had a high IQ, but mostly this was in the context of explaining why I had "no excuse" for doing something or should work harder or be more interested in school. I never went to an elite university, and if anything got a GED and ultimately a BA at a public college more or less because school kind of bored me. I still have occasional nightmares about the stresses of term papers, mandatory attendance and final exams. In other words, all this "brilliance" I was told I had never gave me any advantages. It just made people disappointed in me when I didn't overachieve.

In the working world I usually have a long period where I don't grasp something but once I get it I REALLY get it and usually have my own workarounds to routine problems pretty quickly. I can memorize geek details for my hobbies well. And obviously I write a lot. At call centers I have even learned how to have casual conversations better than I did in high school or college, and even how to better able gauge mood and stuff, even over a telephone.

Yet I haven't figured out how to be romantically appealing to women, while virtually all of my pals had more success without even seeming to try. Women just had crushes on them as they stumbled along or agreed to being asked out on occasion and that was that. None were hardcore studs from THE GAME but all had perfectly average romantic lives and most are settled in LTR or married with kids. I'm the only freak with arrested development.

When I was younger I used to joke that the archetypes of the women I would crush on were "Princess Peach" or "Catwoman." Either a chippy innocent I felt I had to defend or protect or a more assertive person who would yank me from my shell. I don't know if you ever watched the cartoon X-MEN: EVOLUTION, but Kitty and Rogue from that show are the mirror images of some of my old types, too.

I never saw myself as polymath and while I have been told a few times I can be condescending, I really don't consider myself above people. I've always had a laid back, blue collar mindset. I envied the dumb jocks who got away with more because nobody expected anything of them. I really just wanted to be a typical, ordinary person. But later in my 30s I have met a few and they're just...boring. I like having an imagination, it's just a shame it doesn't make me attractive.

Redefining your romantic expectations and figuring out your type are good things to reflect on. From your narrative a part of me wondered if you were dismissing some women too quickly because they didn't seem as "polymath." Maybe instead of attaching to women you think share an elite background, someone more "down to Earth" might be better for you, or at least more patient. And you definitely should figure out when you're the one with more emotional investment and cut bait or at least define terms before things get too heavy that you crash if it doesn't work out.

[inbloomer]

Yes, as I indicated, there are all kinds of holes you can pick in 10,000 hours specifically: the learning curves of different activities vary a lot. But the point which Paul Graham made still stands, i.e. it’s easy to underestimate the effort involved in mastering a field that isn’t yours, even one that seems trivial.

I’ve spent plenty of time considering whether I’ve ever had any good opportunities that I’ve dismissed too quickly, and really don’t think I have. Nice but very average people tend to write themselves off quicker than I would (“Are you terribly bored hanging out with us?” – said in a pleasant way not a sarcastic way).

But at the other end, and this is kind of a reverse Grimes test, women who seem too good to be true – she’s into sport, and art, and politics, and literature, and music, and travel, and she’s socially popular, and active on social media, and beach-body ready… - probably are. When all my relations with such women have ended with them saying “Oh sorry, I gave you a false impression of my feelings” – maybe that wasn’t a one-off. Maybe their whole lives were based on giving people impressions that were exaggerations of the reality…

That’s why I’m wondering if the happiest medium might be someone who has one definite strength, or does one really cool thing, but is totally open that the rest of her life is much more average and mundane.

[Datelessman]

It seems like your conclusion is that you initially fell for women who were "polymaths" like yourself who turned out not to be, and want to instead accept that most people are "mono-maths" or "single-maths" (my made up terms).

I'm just confused a little as to why it was such a big deal for you to believe that various women were experts at a half dozen things instead of "one." Besides, claiming that someone is only an "expert" at "one thing" makes dating almost sound like a role playing game. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, talents and faults, hobbies and turn-offs, and so on.

Most people, in general, "[give] people impressions that were exaggerations of the reality." It is called "padding the resume" or a demeanor or a public face. Also keep in mind there are entire multi-billion dollar international industries telling us that we're lame and we can only get better or "worthy" if we do this, are this, pretend to be that, and (especially) buy a whole bunch of PRODUCT X or EXPERIENCE Y. I don't think all of these women in your life were misleading you or giving wrong impressions deliberately, it's just how we live in a capitalist society. You think men don't also live in bluster and baloney?

I guess we all have different interests and things which we look for in lovers, though. It never mattered to me if a woman was "as smart" as I "thought" I was. But then again, for someone who was always told how smart I was, I always felt like a moron who needed to take tons of notes, forgot stuff constantly, and made many, many, many mistakes. And one of my profound, genuine concerns is that I will "fool" a woman into thinking I am something that I am not, and then she will become angry and resentful.

In my life, I have narrowed down that I had exactly three opportunities in my teens or early 20s to possibly have made something happen, or gotten to a second date. I botched them all and assumed I'd have more, but I did not. But none of them involved having the wrong impression of a woman or thinking she was a "jane of all trades." For me it was my utter disbelief that any woman could possibly like me romantically. It's something I still struggle with.

[inbloomer]

And one of my profound, genuine concerns is that I will "fool" a woman into thinking I am something that I am not, and then she will become angry and resentful.

There are different discussions within this.

Most people are average in some things, a little above average in some things, a little below in some other things. That’s literally how “average” is defined.

What we’re calling a mono-math has a mixture of talent and privilege in one particular field, and has also put a lot of time and effort into it, making them far above average. The field doesn’t have to be intellectual.

A polymath, in theory, is someone who has such a reservoir of ability that they can become far above average with relatively little investment of time, allowing them to achieve highly in multiple fields. That is possible at a school level, but at professional, adult level it becomes very difficult because the elite standard is so high. Even the few verified cases seem to have suffered big downsides (C. B. Fry - Wikipedia).

High intelligence is always a really difficult thing to talk about in relation to dating, because people immediately equate it with being arrogant and unsympathetic. Though as Paul Graham pointed out, football stars are arrogant and it doesn’t stop them being popular. There is no question though that my mind works very fast and with unusual powers of recall: if you want an example, the average person’s reading speed is around 250 words per minute; my comfortable reading speed is 800 words per minute. Also, most people don’t remember much from before they started school but I have a lot of detailed memories from when I was 1, 2, 3 years old.  

It seems pretty universal and unarguable that people are drawn to people like them: the more you feel you can be your authentic self with someone, the more potential mileage there is in the relationship. Conversely, if you have to work hard to find common ground, friends is probably the natural limit. I can get on very well indeed with “average” people as friends and colleagues, but as I’ve said they seem to rule themselves out as intimate partners, simply because they feel we’re too different. (I absolutely have made normal, standard dating mistakes too – but I couldn’t have worked harder to learn from those and improve.)

The issue I’ve had with women I’ve known who are highly intelligent and have applied it to one thing (mono-maths) is that that thing has tended to be classical music. Which is one field I just don’t have much natural interest in. It you do love it, it’s all-consuming, so such people are most likely to date someone from the same world.

In theory, that’s why my ideal partner would have high intelligence and lots of interests (a polymath): we wouldn’t overlap on all of them but would on some. I’m noting that the women I’ve known who initially appeared to be that – and I did get closer with them than with women from the other two categories – later behaved in ways that suggest they’d created an exaggerated impression of themselves that they knew wasn’t sustainable, and were trying to backpedal out of it, as opposed to that it was all going great until I did something wrong.

(Like Brian Griffin in Family Guy, who tells everyone he’s very well-read, then when he’s actually pushed on what he’s reading at the moment: “Erm – the classics. The basics. Words on the printed page, y’know…”)

Just to point out, you may call it “padding the resumé” but lying on your CV is actually illegal. I feel like I keep making this point, but there is a happy middle ground between being totally blunt, tactless and undiplomatic on the one hand, and on the other treating life like a game of Doom on Nightmare mode, except instead of firing a gun you’re telling everyone what they want to hear because you’re a “people-pleaser”.

[Datelessman]

The key thing I was trying to point out is whether or not you are limiting your dating pool. By your own admission, "polymaths" are rare in general, and most of the women you met who were "legitimate" ones were masters of a field you can't wrap your head around. I mean, we all like who we like and everyone is entitled to have their own taste in lovers, I just am concerned that you're not making it any easier on yourself, atop of the foibles of relating to people and dating in general.

You should also remember that women, more so than men, are encouraged by society and many people within their personal lives to "[tell] everyone what they want to hear." That doesn't mean it can't be frustrating and surely there is a difference between doing it publicly versus privately, but it is something to remember. This is the primary reason why there is an entire thing regarding "soft no's," because besides the whole safety angle, women are just not encouraged to be so blunt with their feelings if it risks hurting others (i.e. men). It is only in recent years where this has started to change in the mainstream, and even then that tends to skew younger.

One of my friends actually had a mini crisis about this over the summer. While he's not a virgin, he's had very long "dry spells" and I don't think he's had sex many times. His BFF tried to set him up with someone to date, but he was conflicted because while the woman was physically his type and a "very nice person," everyone seemed to agree that she was less than intelligent. I compared her to Sailor Moon and everyone seemed to agree. I was (and am) extremely hesitant to criticize the intelligence of a woman because that can come off as smug and smarmy and just be inaccurate; she could just have a different area of expertise. I basically told my friend that whether or not he wants to try is up to what he is looking for at this stage in his life.

I, at least, would give someone a chance if they were my type physically and a nice/good person, but they were maybe not as "well read" or whatnot as I. But again, I really am uncomfortable with judging women's intellect, or their looks, so harshly. I did that when I was younger and trust me, it did me absolutely no favors. Being "hard to want" in my teens and early 20s was not a good look, because most women obliged.

I'm not trying to suggest dating people you're just not into for any reason. I'm just wondering if your quest for a polymath isn't making an already tough task even tougher. But if you go into that honestly and willingly, hey, go with it.

[inbloomer]

Look at it from the other perspective. Would you want to date someone who was always three times faster than you? Who, on everything you thought you thought you were an expert in, always knew more and did it better? No matter how nice she was about it, would you feel comfortable around her long-term or would she always make you feel a bit insecure, and suspicious of the real reason she’s into you? Would a part of you quite want her to fail and fall flat on her face, so she’d be back down at your level? Particularly if you did have lots of options who were much more like you – is that the person you’d choose?

Something I remember a friend’s mother saying, about the friend’s sister: “Her ex was terribly brainy but she was never happy around him – her current boyfriend isn’t brainy at all but he makes her happy.”

I have genuinely tried with all kinds of women – a huge range of personalities, physical types and intelligence levels. It’s not that I’m writing people off who would be interested but I'm too fussy. If I write people off, it’s because I don’t want to waste a whole lot more time and energy making myself vulnerable for people I know are inevitably going to say no.

[Datelessman]

Look at it from the other perspective. Would you want to date someone who was always three times faster than you? Who, on everything you thought you thought you were an expert in, always knew more and did it better? No matter how nice she was about it, would you feel comfortable around her long-term or would she always make you feel a bit insecure, and suspicious of the real reason she’s into you? Would a part of you quite want her to fail and fall flat on her face, so she’d be back down at your level? Particularly if you did have lots of options who were much more like you – is that the person you’d choose?

You're asking if I'd date Wonder Woman, basically.  

In all seriousness, I am reminded of that famous scene from 2012's "AVENGERS" when Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner walks towards the aliens and says that iconic line. To paraphrase, "That's my secret; I'm ALWAYS insecure."

My own negative self image and my bad experiences for over 22 years means that I am going to feel "a bit insecure" regardless of whether I date a doctor or a dullard, a genius or a gadfly. And while this is obviously a problem I have to work on, the advantage is that there's no SPECIFIC insecurity I would feel about any specific "type" of woman.

To respond to your example specifically, I wouldn't have any problem dating someone who was triple my speed, intellect, geekness, or writing skills (i.e. three of those are my "best traits"). If she was genuinely "nice" about it and wasn't always putting me down or acting condescending or smug, then no, I have no problem dating a "better" woman. If anything I could learn a lot from her, and we could have some fascinating conversations. Would I wonder that she might prefer a different guy if given half the chance and be suspicious of why she thinks I'm it? Sure, but that's universal, not specific.

And no, I would not "want her to fail and fall flat on her face, so she’d be back down at [my] level." I don't take pleasure in the suffering of platonic friends and I certainly wouldn't in a lover. If I was dating someone who did go out of her way to make me feel inferior or stressed that I was beneath her to the point that I felt resentful, then that's a case of being incompatible due to personality and emotion, not traits like intellect, or earning power, etc.

I hesitate to use fictional examples (since fiction isn't real), but one thing which can be helpful when reading or watching comics, TV shows and/or movies written or helmed by women is it does help you understand what SOME women like in a lover (or believe other women do). And one underlying theme is that every woman, no matter how powerful or intelligent, will want to be vulnerable sometimes or need someone to support her. That a couple in a healthy relationship compliments each other even if they're not technically on the same "level." Sure, a woman could be many times smarter, well read and a bastion of geek culture. But she would still need someone who had her back sometimes. I could be someone more "down to earth" than most of the smug jerkbags on "her level" and be refreshing. Simply having someone to bounce ideas off of who doesn't get all huffy about it is very useful: just look at Dr. Watson to Sherlock Holmes or Robin to Batman. And it says a lot that with male fictional characters, there's usually no problem with the fanbase when you have women or other men in those "supportive" roles. But when you have a lead heroine? Ever notice how many times she'll date a fellow superhero or at least a man who is in some kind of "combat" role (i.e. Wonder Woman usually dates Steve Trevor, a tough soldier in his own right)? And most times one of the classic subplots is the guy not being able to handle being "the weak one" in their relationship?

A few years ago Marvel and Sony released an animated direct-to-video movie titled "AVENGERS CONFIDENTIAL: BLACK WIDOW & PUNISHER" which was written by Marjorie Liu. The plot involves Black Widow dating a SHIELD scientist who decides to betray SHIELD to HYDRA in exchange for HYDRA turning him into a super-soldier. When confronted, he insists he did it "to be equal to you, Natasha" and all that. But he never considered her perspective. The lines that stuck with me, to paraphrase from memory, were, "You didn't do this for me, you did this for yourself," and especially, "I loved you, and you were always there for me. Wasn't that enough?" The insecurity was all his; Natasha had no problem dating a supportive and kind "civilian" despite being "a super spy, a superhero." It was the dude who couldn't handle it, and it is a theme I see a damn lot in stories written by women so I assume it is a trend. I've never been afraid of a "strong" woman, at least any more or less than I am of ANY woman who claimed to like me.

Personality can have little or nothing to do with various attributes. A woman who has a minimum wage job at a chain fast food place can be more condescending and haughty than a corporate scientist who makes triple my salary and is very cultured and professionally creative in a way I could never be. I'm not usually put off by attributes by themselves.

Having options and being compatible with someone can be two vastly different things. I technically once had the "option" to sleep with my mother's older friend purely to get the physical feat "over with" had I been so inclined, but I didn't because she was not compatible to me physically or intellectually. I don't treat dating like Dragon Ball Z. "I can't date her, she's over NINE THOU-SAND!"

I suppose you also could have meant this example in the context of me "holding a woman back" who was many times smarter than me and if I'd feel bad or insecure about that. Again, "holding someone back" I think has more to do with emotions and personality, not raw intellect or physical features. Ultimately my insecurity is MY INSECURITY; it isn't hers.

As a virgin, I actually would prefer a woman to be VASTLY more experienced than I am in terms of relationships, or at the very least in satisfying her own body. She is the one who knows what turns her on, and I am the one who has to receive that information and apply it. I would actually find that very comforting than someone who is all, "Geez, how should I know!" like I am.

Something I remember a friend’s mother saying, about the friend’s sister: “Her ex was terribly brainy but she was never happy around him – her current boyfriend isn’t brainy at all but he makes her happy.”

I have genuinely tried with all kinds of women – a huge range of personalities, physical types and intelligence levels. It’s not that I’m writing people off who would be interested but I'm too fussy. If I write people off, it’s because I don’t want to waste a whole lot more time and energy making myself vulnerable for people I know are inevitably going to say no.

Making someone happy sometimes has little to do with "brainy." It depends on how you treat someone. Being a polymath is no indicator of that, at least from my experience.

You have a right to not invest yourself emotionally with people you think are "dead ends" or incompatible. My perspective is that looking for a fellow polymath hasn't been a silver bullet either, and that seeing people as "only being good at one thing" is a little limiting and can also be inaccurate.

[inbloomer]

I take your point that some people, including you, actively want to be the Dr Watson in a partnership rather than the Sherlock Holmes. To be honest, I would really rather be the Sherlock Holmes, the more dominant personality. Though Dr Watson is still quite a capable figure! (At least in the books. Some of adaptations turned him into a complete buffoon.)

You’re right also that in terms of looking for a polymath, never say never but it clearly hasn’t worked so far. Though I’m not being disparaging about people who specialise in one thing – my whole point was that being exceptional in one thing and average in everything else is actually a massive achievement.

So yes, it’s a least a possibility that someone who is happy to play a more supportive role would be right for me. I don’t mind the pressure of being more the leader, as long as the other person will speak up if she’s really not happy about something. If I haven’t been clear on this hitherto, people saying “yes, yes, absolutely yes!” to things because they don’t want to give offence, but actually meaning no and then flaking at the last minute with a bizarre excuse, is what I really can’t handle.

[Datelessman]

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say I "actively want[ed] to be the" submissive one or "lessor" one in a relationship. I was stating that I wouldn't be specifically insecure about it if it turned out that way and that gauging which person in a couple is the "superior" or "smarter" one is tricky at best and judgmental at worst, because everyone has differing skills and experiences. I am not saying I never wanted to be the "in charge" person in a relationship, just that if I wasn't I wouldn't automatically get bent out of shape unless our personalities were not compatible (which can happen even if, say, two retail employees are dating).

Incidentally, Dr. Watson was also the ladies man; Sherlock Holmes was close to asexual. And a great many women seem to like Robin/Nightwing as much or more than Batman, not only for his rear end. Even if, yes, DC Comics has gone "all in" on Nightwing having their version of "America's ass." But even in those stories, they're not just spectators or Dragon Ball Z supporting cast members; they contribute and then there are times when they are the expert. In a healthy relationship even if there is a "gap" in the skills, resources, or intellect between partners, there is a give and take.

To use your example, let's say my polymath Wonder Woman sweetie comes home confused because one of her friends says she is going to speed date next week and no one knows much about how that works besides people on the Internet, who can be liars. It's the one thing she doesn't know (because aside for Judge Judy, Mr. Fantastic or the dad on 7TH HEAVEN, no one knows everything). Well, now I get to be the expect and tell her what they're about, since I've done a few. And in a healthy relationship, I don't lord this over her like an insecure jerk, and she doesn't resent that she needs help with something. It is just the give and take, push and pull that exists in any relationship.

People being insincere and flaking on things are annoying, and unfortunately that's a very common thing. Entire books are written about ghosting or "he/she's just into you" and all that. The golden rule is if something becomes a multi-million or billion dollar industry, it isn't that rare. I'm not sure if older male virginity is there yet, since the dating gurus who "treat" them are usually involved in general dating/coaching areas with people who are not virgins. I've yet to see someone exclusively "treat" such folks and become a gazillionaire. Even most sexual surrogates are not millionaires (unless they sold their story to make a movie). I mean even DNL has quietly stopped producing YouTube videos because he probably isn't earning enough for them to be worth the investment.

[inbloomer]

The YouTube point backs up what I’m saying about spreading yourself too thin – I think quite a few people have tried expanding into video content and quietly given up. As with blogging 10-15 years ago, unless you can put a huge amount into building it up, the hassle-return ratio isn’t good enough.

I totally understand any relationship has give and take, even a relatively uneven one. I’m not following the Avengers references very well (Covid brain fog atm), but isn’t that my point – superheroes are happier to date regular people than you’d think, it’s the regular people who get insecure about it?

This whole scene you imagine of a sex partner acting like a drill sergeant does confuse me a bit, as it seems to be the source of a lot of your anxiety but also what you’d choose over any alternative. It isn’t what I would want. I honestly think that someone I was that compatible with in personality terms wouldn’t have vastly more relationship experience. If she did have a bit more, I would have more faith in someone who was modest about it and took the line that this is a fresh start and all relationships are different, as opposed to someone piling in with “this is how we do everything”. But it probably would be more authentic if she felt able to share the odd lesson learned – “ah yes, we can try sex in that position but what I’ve found with it is…” – and that be helpful, rather than doing an outright Year Zero on the past.

I am dubious though that anyone who’s constantly using exaggerations and excuses on relatively trivial matters has a point where they magically turn into an excellent, sincere communicator.

[Datelessman]

The YouTube point backs up what I’m saying about spreading yourself too thin – I think quite a few people have tried expanding into video content and quietly given up. As with blogging 10-15 years ago, unless you can put a huge amount into building it up, the hassle-return ratio isn’t good enough.

It isn't that simple in that case. The success or failure of someone's online campaign on various platforms has as much to do with uncontrollable circumstances (i.e. timing, luck, algorithms) than it does with skill or content. Some absolutely simplistic or terrible "content producers" can get big while other slick productions can struggle or fade into the background. Even overly produced online campaigns funded by literal millionaires and/or corporations don't always succeed in the same ways as, say, PewDiePie or Angry Video Game Nerd. If online stardom were as effortlessly controllable as other things, it'd already have been packaged and resold to us at $19.99 a month now.

It isn't that DNL is "bad" at producing videos or podcasts. The ones I've listened to were no better or worse than most out there. So in this instance I wouldn't say that it proves that he can't "multitask" or isn't a polymath. As someone who makes his primary living online it made perfect sense to try to "diversify" and move to another platform, especially since YouTube has plenty of accounts by dating gurus that do well. I'd argue that DNL didn't "blow up" on YT in part because he waited too long to put in an earnest effort combined with the fact that various algorithms tend to favor more conservative leanings (unfortunately, IMO). But I'm hardly an expert.

From what I see, DNL gets his primary income from coaching services (which his website promotes), book and/or limited merchandise sales (also website promoted), occasional convention appearances (at least pre-Covid) and to a limited degree, Patreon (which at last glance he gets $200-$400 a month from). His articles are republished on some other websites (i.e. Good Men Project) but I don't know if he actually gets money for that or paid in "exposure." The only other website I know of where DNL produced original content for (as in new letters versus reprints of old ones) was for Kotaku, and that contract seemed to end in mid-2020 amid the pandemic. The irony is that DNL's desire to help people I think overrides his business skills. He could be like so many online gurus and hide his "best stuff" behind a paywall of some kind, but he doesn't. Even most of his books are essentially available for free in his archives because many chapter drafts went up as various non-letter column articles. It is actually one of the reasons why out of all the gurus online I have actually read more of his stuff. It isn't just his progressive (albeit over time) message; it is the impression that he's actually not a con man eager to shuck and devour his fanbase like oysters akin to many other "professional dating experts" who promise the moon but ONLY if you read their book, pay for the newsletter, etc. He's almost too nice for the industry he's in, which is dominated by sexist con-men (IMO of course).

I totally understand any relationship has give and take, even a relatively uneven one. I’m not following the Avengers references very well (Covid brain fog atm), but isn’t that my point – superheroes are happier to date regular people than you’d think, it’s the regular people who get insecure about it?

By and large, male superheroes in fiction tend to date civilian ladies, and by and large those ladies are fine with it. Occasionally they get frustrated with being targets for villains or feeling ignored, but by and large it is very common for a male superhero to not date a super-heroine, but a non combatant from their cast.

Super-Heroines, on the other hand, often seem to date either male superheroes or men who are in some sort of combative profession (i.e. soldiers, cops, federal agents, etc.). And a frequent subplot (or nearly universal subplot) for a story where a super-heroine does date a non-combat civilian is the dude can't handle it and gets insecure.

There are exceptions to these rules but by and large things seem to play out that way overall. For example, I haven't seen the Disney+ streaming TV version of MS. MARVEL but in the original comics, her best male friend/almost boyfriend Bruno has several arcs where he feels insecure or ignored, DESPITE the fact that he almost always serves as Kamala Khan's "science guy" and is often critical to her victories.

This whole scene you imagine of a sex partner acting like a drill sergeant does confuse me a bit, as it seems to be the source of a lot of your anxiety but also what you’d choose over any alternative. It isn’t what I would want. I honestly think that someone I was that compatible with in personality terms wouldn’t have vastly more relationship experience. If she did have a bit more, I would have more faith in someone who was modest about it and took the line that this is a fresh start and all relationships are different, as opposed to someone piling in with “this is how we do everything”. But it probably would be more authentic if she felt able to share the odd lesson learned – “ah yes, we can try sex in that position but what I’ve found with it is…” – and that be helpful, rather than doing an outright Year Zero on the past.

I am dubious though that anyone who’s constantly using exaggerations and excuses on relatively trivial matters has a point where they magically turn into an excellent, sincere communicator.

Part of that is where I live. Women in NY are usually more assertive and aggressive than those in other areas, or at least are encouraged to be. I've been told more than a handful of times by various people both online and off that I'd "supposedly" have better success in other states where "people are nicer." I always get suspicious of that notion or assumption, as well as know I wouldn't be able to handle it.

I don't have any problem with a woman having vastly more experience than myself. In some ways it would be a relief since I wouldn't be responsible for a significant portion of her dating history if/when it doesn't work out between us. I've never been a subscriber to the "Madonna/whore complex" and usually look down on men who subscribe to it. It'd be nice if she didn't lord it over me, but that comes down to communication which has little to do whether someone is a polymath or not.

Perhaps one of the things you should do moving forward is establishing a better communication rapport before getting too emotionally invested. I.E. figuring out whether they communicate well or in a way which compliments you before having any expectations.

[inbloomer]

In terms of identifiable mistakes I’ve made, I think nearly all were in the direction of trying too hard to make something work when cracks had started appearing, rather than in the direction of writing someone off too easily.

It is really difficult, because to want to date someone you have to look at her in an optimistic, rose-tinted way, but if she then rejects, you think “why didn’t I look at her more forensically and be the one to walk when I had a chance?”

These past few months have been the only time ever where I’ve had absolutely no-one as even a faint, long-shot possibility. So, who knows if I’ll ever meet anyone again where emotional investment is plausible. I can only try to create a pen portrait of what I would expect someone who was right for me to be like, checking it’s not an impossible fiction. You are right that her having a communication style we could call “soft but authentic” seems very important, probably more so than matching on particular interests.

I can’t comment on whether DNL is “too nice”, though in the past (maybe before you were on the site) he took a more aggressive tone, picking targets and doing “chair leg of truth” articles to beat down why that person was wrong on everything, which whipped up people below the line into even more of a frenzy, plus left him very open to charges of hypocrisy.

I agree what becomes successful is a complex cocktail that no-one fully understands, with timing a big part of it. One of my favourite non-fiction books is Leonard Mlodinow’s The Drunkard’s Walk, which goes into this a lot. He talks about some advertising executive who came up one mega-hit campaign (for a vodka I think), and spent the rest of his life unsuccessfully trying to replicate it, making clear to everyone that if he knew what had worked with the first one, he’d say so. But if you have the time to put a lot of background work into soft marketing and matching up to the algorithms, as well as producing the content itself, that definitely helps. (Marketing can’t rescue a terrible product, as with New Coke, but it can boost an average one.)

[Datelessman]

In terms of identifiable mistakes I’ve made, I think nearly all were in the direction of trying too hard to make something work when cracks had started appearing, rather than in the direction of writing someone off too easily.

It is really difficult, because to want to date someone you have to look at her in an optimistic, rose-tinted way, but if she then rejects, you think “why didn’t I look at her more forensically and be the one to walk when I had a chance?”

That is why it is a cliche that "hindsight is always 20/20." Especially for a "late bloomer" or a "never bloomer" like us, there is almost a propensity to bend over backwards to be understanding or make something out of nothing. Not always due to desperation, but just being eager; longing. Especially since part of what makes someone a late or never bloomer is having relatively few opportunities.

These past few months have been the only time ever where I’ve had absolutely no-one as even a faint, long-shot possibility. So, who knows if I’ll ever meet anyone again where emotional investment is plausible. I can only try to create a pen portrait of what I would expect someone who was right for me to be like, checking it’s not an impossible fiction. You are right that her having a communication style we could call “soft but authentic” seems very important, probably more so than matching on particular interests.

There are things that can be done to change that but a big variable is available time and emotional energy (something I think DNL overestimates in people over 30).

I can’t comment on whether DNL is “too nice”, though in the past (maybe before you were on the site) he took a more aggressive tone, picking targets and doing “chair leg of truth” articles to beat down why that person was wrong on everything, which whipped up people below the line into even more of a frenzy, plus left him very open to charges of hypocrisy.

He started around 2011 and I started lurking in 2014 and interacting via the forums in 2015 (and getting banned from the main one in mid-2017). DNL was definitely still shedding some of the PUA stuff when he started (i.e. he preached the gospel of working out WAY more when he started than he does now) and I do remember more "chair leg of truth" articles then than now. He did have a rather humbling experience around 2020 I think which could have changed things, as well as just growing and changing.

I agree what becomes successful is a complex cocktail that no-one fully understands, with timing a big part of it. One of my favourite non-fiction books is Leonard Mlodinow’s The Drunkard’s Walk, which goes into this a lot. He talks about some advertising executive who came up one mega-hit campaign (for a vodka I think), and spent the rest of his life unsuccessfully trying to replicate it, making clear to everyone that if he knew what had worked with the first one, he’d say so. But if you have the time to put a lot of background work into soft marketing and matching up to the algorithms, as well as producing the content itself, that definitely helps. (Marketing can’t rescue a terrible product, as with New Coke, but it can boost an average one.)

I have a better understanding of sales pitches and "spin" now then when I was younger, and they can help. But unless there is at least a nugget of truth or substance behind it, it's usually just hot air.

[inbloomer]

That is why it is a cliche that "hindsight is always 20/20." Especially for a "late bloomer" or a "never bloomer" like us, there is almost a propensity to bend over backwards to be understanding or make something out of nothing. Not always due to desperation, but just being eager; longing. Especially since part of what makes someone a late or never bloomer is having relatively few opportunities.

Yes, I think you’re right that ‘desperation’ isn’t the word but there is a kind of longing or yearning. And it really isn’t a single-track focus on sex: it’s about the little moments most people take for granted, like going into a shop and the shopkeeper treating you as a couple. The scarcity of even those is why it’s so hurtful later to discover that the other person was ‘just pretending’ and was trying to find a moment she could end it.

[inbloomer]

Just to resurrect this thread, it's become clearer to me over the last few months that these women with whom I've had these failed "intense friendships" have tended to conform to a particular type. This is by no means all the women I've been interested in - some were just nice, normal people who weren't interested back. But from various commentary I've seen about certain YouTubers and influencers, in whom I've never had any emotional investment, I can see this type exists.

The main characteristics are:

- Appears too good to be true. Has an upper-class accent and impressive-sounding family background. Claims to have lots of avid intellectual and cultural interests. Also states she's into fashion and puts effort into her looks.
- But when you look closely, it's all sloppy. She mispronounces words, the family isn't what you were led to expect, on her supposed passions she doesn't know any of the details that a real enthusiast would, she makes mistakes with hygiene and other basic daily tasks.
- She or people around her make the odd oblique reference to a serious mental health or other issue that you aren't being shown the full picture of. (Such as her being subject to a strange rule or allowance, or that she's been "ill" or "gone through hell" over the past couple of years...)

Seen in this light, I'm gaining more understanding of why these failed. I obviously wish to avoid falling for the same ever again - and indeed to warn others of signs to look out for.

[Hielario]

Yeah, that type exists. Makes sense that they'll stick to someone who seems to believe their embellishments / is kind and patient with them when others wouldn't, even if they gerente really attracted to you. (Assuming they weren't doing something nastier, like trying to climb socially).

Let's look at the positive part: now you have a good template of the kind of person or behaviour you should avoid (better than mine, at least, even if it seems I actually was right about my cousin from what I've learned about her lately...).

[inbloomer]

(This may mean nothing to anyone else, but just for absolute clarity to anyone who's read my older posts: the woman I knew whose mental health issue killed her actually was the real deal, in terms of being highly intellectual, cultured and classy. She was never in this category.)

[Sponsored content]