A Solution

Recently, I met a German lady who invited me to join the International Women's Club of Philadelphia. I looked at their schedule of events and quickly realized that these women must have rich husbands who allow them to be stay-at-home housewives because, with the exception of one annual dinner, all the events are in the middle of the workday. I told the German lady that the only event I can attend is the annual dinner and asked what kind of food I should bring. She told me that in previous years the annual dinner was held at someone's home and it was always only a few people who volunteered to help set up, which made the event less fun for them, so this year it will be held at a country club which will be costly.

This phenomenon, where a few people in a group put in much more effort and the rest of the group simply enjoy the benefits, is very common. I see it in my workplace where a few people consistently work overtime, while others leave when the clock hits 5, yet they are in the same pay level. They are under recognized and under appreciated. In my parents' Bible study group, each family will rotate to host the rest of the group. However, soon it became just one or two families constantly hosting. You can also see this in the microcosm of a marriage. When one partner is putting in more time and effort to do house chores, there can be a build up of resentment. On the macro level, communism tries to rectify the unjust world of farmers doing all the work and the nobles simply mooching off of their efforts.

Is there a solution?

Elite schools and companies have an elaborate application and interview process to try and make sure that the candidate is a good fit for the rest of the group. In general, groups that seem to run successfully have a rotation system where each person at some point will take on a portion of the responsibilities.

I remember in high school biology we were often broken up into teams, and most teams did not do so well, except for one. I observed that this team was comprised entirely of females while the rest of the teams were either all male or a mix. I was initially on a mixed gender team. I noticed the slight tendency towards antagonistic behavior, where ideas being generated were either dismissed or ridiculed, and often the team went off topic. I decided that a chance at a better grade would be to get into the all-female team. The difference was dramatic, all ideas were accepted as valuable and everyone had the common goal of doing a good job on the project.

In middle school, the gym classes were segregated by gender. The volleyball team I was on initially did not do very well, but quickly became the top team. In the beginning, none of us were particularly good at volleyball. Each of our individual failings were noticed by everyone on the team. We did not shy away from our deficiencies, we confronted them, but not in an antagonistic way. As a team, we encouraged each other to improve in a collaborative and supportive manner. Pulling people up, instead of pushing people down. By lifting each other up, we were able to win.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I wrote the above on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 11:58 AM. Reading my draft 10 years later, I am struck by still how relevant this topic is in my life. Currently, I am teaching Calculus at a local college and students come in with so much negative self-talk. I hear an echo chamber of "I'm so stupid," "I'm dumb," "I'm not smart," etc. They also have a tendency to tear each other down, instead of lifting each other up. The focus is on being "right" instead of on the process of learning. Maybe telling them the story of how the all-female biology team excelled and how my volleyball team became better could serve as inspiration in math.

Happiness Is a Piece of Poo

I currently have in my keeping two canines, a rat, and a baker’s dozen of fish. As my place is progressively turning into a zoo, images of comparative ethologist Konrad Lorenz’s home-turned-animal-sanctuary is evoked in my mind. His wife chasing the geese out of the garden, jackdaws flying freely through the windows, mice building nests in the linen closet, ducks dancing up the stairs, and the ancient enmity between dogs and cats put on hold while living in the Lorenz cottage. In my case it is more along the lines of one dog yapping at the fish bowl while the other is whining at the rat cage.

I received a text message several weeks ago from my cousin, “Hey, I have a huge favor to ask you. Are you there?” Not sure what this is all about, I text back, “Are you okay?” It turned out not as dire as I imagined, she needed someone to look after her dogs for a week while she is away in Jamaica. Last Friday an odd pair showed up at my front doorstep, a diminutive pup-sized dog small enough to easily fit inside a lady’s purse and a goodly sized dog, tall enough to easily reach the kitchen counter tops.

Upon entering, the tiny one zipped through the living room into the dining room and back again at light speed. When still, you can see the cream and hazel swirl dripping down the bridge of her two-toned upturned pink and inky black nose. At the top of her head is a caramel dot floating on the source of the cream and hazel drip, melding down her back into latte colored fur, with cinnamon along the spine, ending in a white tipped tail. Overly sweet in coloration as well as temperament, this dainty princess answers to the name of Chiquita.

In comparison, the large mutt mostly black with tan lining seems like a sporty tramp. With the semblance of a German shepherd, his intelligence is betrayed by the expressiveness of his large triangular ears and soulful dark eyes. His muzzle has a slight bent to it near his broad jet black nose. And his charcoal tail, like Chiquita’s, ends in a dab of white. He comes when called, Max.

The first two days to my dismay ended in buying urine cleaner at the local PetSmart and scrubbing the carpet near the washing machine. The two puddles of pee were discovered by Nick, the other human in the house. We are still uncertain of the culprit but it is suspected to be the Chihuahua. We were told that she has a small bladder. A make shift barricade was built immediately, successfully keeping out both dogs from the laundry facility and disabled the humans from easily going up and down the stairs.

Two walks a day multiplied into five walks a day: at daybreak, after breakfast, at noon, after dinner, and before bedtime. This was thought to prevent further outbreaks. So far so good. Each walk is accompanied with the hope that the little one will urinate and defecate. If she does not, the bets are raised on the next walk. There is a certain amount of anxiety and tension built up between the two humans when Chiquita has not yet peed or pooped. Daily greeting starts and ends with, “Did she poop yet?” The answer varies, “No, not yet,” or “Yes, but she hasn’t peed.”

I woke up this morning to the sound of dogs whining, I got up and took them out for a walk and was content when they both pooped, first Max, then Chiquita. It made me so happy. I rolled over in bed and realized that it was just a dream. I wondered to myself if this is how first time parents of newborns feel when changing diapers. I restated the tale to my bedmate and he replied: “Happiness is a piece of poo.”

For your reading pleasure

All those who find interest in mental lingerie should add these two articles to their weekend reading list:

The Trolls Among Us - Screwing with Internet users for fun, profit, and to fulfill the ultimate desire of making someone else suffer.

Shorts Crack the Code - Men take another step towards comfortable-clothing equality with women.

Post-spandex?

Recently, I've started reading a number of blogs on a somewhat regular basis. Perhaps this is not surprising, as I also write for a blog. One blog I occasionally stumble upon is http://www.somethingtodoaftertheporn.com. While technically not a blog (see the explanation there), it still provides for some interesting reading. It's maintained by a guy from my high school class who has been doing fun Web stuff ever since opening a teacher evaluation web site and getting into a lot of trouble for it. (Back then, in 2000 or so, people our teachers' age didn't know that nothing is sacred on the Internet).

One link posted there that caught my attention is http://www.cakelovesyou.com. Apparently it's a clothing company run by three guys also from my high school. And if you liked spandex (or even if you didn't), you'll like some of their pictures.

So you know, small world.

Reality RPGs with women

Introduction

Over the past couple of weeks, I managed to meet a few girls. Although I don't want to suggest that anything beyond polite conversation was the result, I had an opportunity to think about different approaches one could take to woo one (or more) of them and decide which will be the most effective. Unfortunately, my brain tends to shut down when I'm trying to interact with just about anyone I don't know, especially women. But as an after-the-fact thought experiment, I think I did gather a few insights.

First, there are at least two categories of female-attraction strategies: the first one works with almost any woman, while the second may target certain insecurities, fears, likes, dislikes, or other personal traits. Of course, the first category is preferable because it works more reliably. It has to do with having (or pretending to have, which is essentially the same thing) a certain personality, what Ladder Theory parlance calls the "outlaw biker" type of character. Women are "automatically" attracted to such men because they exhume confidence, physical strength, and originality. Using a slightly different vocabulary, that of the current presidential campaign, they are "mavericks."

The second category of female-attraction strategies target women's less-basic and more varied needs. A woman may seek a man to fulfill a real or imagined need, or to have a teacher, a guide through life. It would seem that "fears" may fall under the first category as well as the second. The way to differentiate, here, is that first-category, more basic fears result from nature ("who will protect my offspring?"), while second-category fears appear during nurturing ("if I'm not married by 30, my mother will disown me"). Younger women who are considered adults (16-20, depending on the circumstances) may have various insecurities they tend to lose as they go through college or other such competitive environment. So it seems that second category strategies are especially effective for women under 21.

As a note, I'd like to point out that strategies within the second category tend to be mutually exclusive, in the sense that the man has to pick a role and stick to it, which means only a certain kind of woman will be affected at any one time. The first category, on the other hand, contains strategies which generally reinforce each other and, of course, appeal to a wide range of women. The two categories can also be used together.

It may be of some value to also categorize how women talk about other women. Clearly, there are the hot ones, who no one talks about except out of jealousy. They've been everywhere and done everything, but it is obvious and not worth pointing out. Then there are those who are known to be "loose" but are probably quite conservative. They just have a reputation for fun. They do enough to spark discussion among their friends but rarely, if ever, do anything outrageous. Then there are those who are neither hot nor "class clowns." They are not hot but also not conservative. They actually have a reputation among the men, having slept with all of them. And, last but not least, are the quiet ones. No one talks about them. They are not cool, although they could be the best homemakers or computer programmers.


Hypothesis

The biggest challenges of my experiment are 1) the window of opportunity for picking and acting out a strategy is tiny, basically minutes to hours. 2) how do I know which strategy will work with which woman?

Young Western women tend to like young Western men, in general. After only a few minutes of meeting someone new they may hug them or let themselves be seen in a bikini on the beach. It's a mystery to me when exactly, after meeting, various activities become "appropriate," and what needs to be done for the red line to move. (This also has to do with the Ladder Theory, but the temporal aspect is largely unknown and needs to be researched). My guess is that, because the woman places a man on the ladder almost immediately, first impressions are critical. But what else is critical? If they don't hold hands on a first date, does that mean certain kinds of touch are off limits for a much longer time than if they did hold hands? What is acceptable? What is a yes-or-no issue, and what can the woman be convinced of? Unfortunately, this topic remains a mystery to me.

To answer #2, I would like to propose that better-looking women are more interested in the same thing, ie, better-looking guys, the physical stuff. For intelligent conversation they can always turn to intellectual whores (also cf. Ladder Theory). This is reinforced by the fact that better-looking women tend to be healthier (either because in a man's eyes healthy=beautiful or because beautiful=healthy. Which causes the other doesn't matter). Hotter women wear less clothing, don't get tired as fast, and are more optimistic. Of course, this is all just empirical evidence.

Given the above, let me state the obvious - less-good looking women tend to fall for category 2. They tend to be smarter, so there is a higher chance for common interests. They tend to be less secure (perhaps because they are not that hot) and have various fears a man can exploit. And I don't mean "exploit" in a negative way; it simply means the fulfillment of a need, the making of a new connection.


Experiment

Now for what the men need to do. Those of us who are simply attractive (obviously, a miniscule minority among the readers of this blog) may simply come up and talk to anyone naturally, without blushing, feeling stupid, mincing words, or thinking too hard about what to say and what not to say. You are a natural. You know what to do with any girl you meet. Congratulations, you made it. I don't even know why you are reading this.

For the rest of us, it helps to think through various stereotypes and analyze a woman as closely as possible before and while meeting her (but beware - Facebook profiles can be very deceptive). Placing a woman into some group will help you later with your category 2 approach. During the meeting, some neutral conversation can lead to conclusions that can suggest strategies. The problem is there is no lie detector. For example, many of us loser men can't tell if a girl is saying something because she is insecure or because she is bored with you ("my mom makes me clean my room every weekend, so I have to be home on Saturday.") Figuring out how to get to the real reasons behind one or another remark is another big unknown and is left as an exercise to the reader.

If it is possible to play a role well, play it. Otherwise, simplify, simplify. A few well-positioned actions are better than a vague, overwhelming "theme". Of course, comparing a role's effectiveness between different women and different circumstances is an imperfect science. But a knowledge of female types and a list of strategies should help avoiding most obvious and some not-so-obvious blunders.


Conclusion

Playing a role and a strategy to meet women is a losing proposition if you are not acting naturally. It helps to position yourself strategically as soon as possible, but the most important thing is an ascending order (polite conversation->teasing->touching). Also, in my limited personal experience, talking only takes you so far. It helps the best in a group, where the woman will think about how the others react to the words the man is saying and how they position him in the group. One-on-one, physical contact is more important.

Lastly, I want to add that this is not at all how women look at relationships. This approach will seem strange and alien to them and to men who are good at picking up women - but only because they do it so naturally they don't have to think about it.


References

Ladder Theory - http://www.laddertheory.com

America's Problem: Suburbia

With ever-rising gas prices and my long search for the best place for me to live, the discussion of suburbs, inner-city neighborhoods, gentrification, and public transit is never far from my mind. Today I looked up some info about Montclair, NJ, because a friend recommended it as a solid middle class town with a substantial young population (at Montclair State University) and proximity to New York City.

In the Wikipedia article I found this interesting tidbit:

After a referendum held on February 21, 1894, Montclair was reincorporated as a Town, effective February 24, 1894.[6] In the late 1970s, after protesting for years at the inequities built into the formulas, Montclair joined several other communities to qualify for a pool of federal aid allocated only to Townships, that allowed townships to receive as much as double the revenue-sharing aid per capita received by the four other types of New Jersey municipalities — Borough, City, Town or Village.[7][8]

Citation #7 points to a New York Times article from 1977, a year when big cities were on the verge of bankruptcy as its most affluent, and generally white, population left to the suburbs. This coincided with, and surely had some influence on, a surge in crime and a reduction in city services. A popular theory among the group we in 2008 may call "Obama supporters" (students, yuppies, people under 30, city-dwellers) states that the federal government in fact promoted "white flight" and the deterioration of big cities through policies that favored the suburbs over the urban areas and made it easy for wealthier folks to move out of the city.

Favoring townships over the other kinds of municipalities is one example of such a policy. Although I don't have access to the full New York Times article, I can venture a guess that townships are more rural and suburban than boroughs, cities, towns, and villages. They tend to have more commuting professionals or, in very rural settings, large farming enterprises- in other words, people favored by Republicans over both poor minorities and wealthy urbanites. This is the kind of policy that promotes suburban sprawl, increases dependence on the automobile, and generally "Wal-Martizes" America.

When I ran a search for "revenue-sharing aid" I stumbled upon the book Inside Game/Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America. One of its main themes is that elastic cities- those that expand geographically by annexing empty land or adjacent towns- do better economically than inelastic cities. Inelastic cities don't expand, so when people move out of them into the suburbs, the cities lose their taxes. Elastic cities collect taxes from both the rich and the poor by including them in one municipality; inelastic cities get stuck with the poor, while the rich live in their own little worlds.

New York City is a prime example of an inelastic city. Its long-established rich suburbs to the east and north will never give up their independent and parasitic status. New Jersey, across the river, has the largest number of municipalities per square mile in America, because everyone wants to be exclusive. Town mergers would be an obvious and very cost-effective way of reducing the state's financial woes, but who would want the rich and the poor to mix in one town, much less on one street? It's as un-American as it gets.

Paintball

I had a very full day yesterday. My first main activity of the day was a game of paintball organized by some coworkers, and in the spirit of seriously discussing what at first seems like a frivolous pursuit, I would like to share what I learned from the experience.

Out of the 22 people who ultimately showed up, only about a quarter were actually the employees of my company. A black dude, the organizer, brought some of his black friends; an Indian guy brought Indian friends; I brought five friends and friends of friends of various backgrounds (if you have to know, two Albanians, a true-blue American, a Russian, and a Pakistani). Needless to say, women were in the minority. We got along well, partly due to a carryover of office formalities and partly due to the anonymity of war. (More on this later). As a team-building exercise (as office-organized activities are invariably called), the game was a success.

At first we went through a setting-up process not unlike that of renting skis on a ski mountain- you get a bunch of gear to put on, and you have a choice of doing a full day or a half day of the activity. Then we got a brief safety orientation and split up into teams. Two high school kids, our referees, led us into the tent near the roped-off areas which were the playing fields. The number one rule was that if you get shot, you are "dead" and out for the round. Games were up to 15 minutes long (ending before the time was up if the goal of the round was reached). We did a total of 7 rounds on 3 different fields, with one round not counting because the refs gave different instructions to the different teams.

In the previous days, I wondered if I would feel guilty about hitting people because I know them, or because they are strangers, or because they are managers, or because they are women, etc. This didn't actually happen on the battlefield, because almost everyone was dressed into identical rented camouflage jumpsuits. The only differentiator was a pair of orange bands on the arms of my team members. (The other team had no bands). In war, anonymity is everything. I just felt animosity towards my enemies, indifference towards members of my team I didn't know, and an urge to help my teammates I did know, although that was canceled out by a certain helplessness overall. Teamwork takes time to develop.

Paintball shows how far modern man is divorced from nature. Crawling on the forest floor feels unnatural; clear, straight lines of sight are expected but usually prove dangerous because your enemy knows about them, too. The forest has to be treated as a three-dimensional space, which even experienced hikers don't always know how to do. Paintball lets you reconnect with this forgotten animal past.

Another thing paintball brings out is the famous "war is hell." Here I am, by choice, in protective gear, shooting what are, by and large, harmless candy shells filled with paint. I paid for it and signed a waiver. The worst feeling I deal with is losing a round, although there is that small chance of twisting an ankle or getting hit up close, which hurts. Now just imagine that you have to do it. You are stuck in a war, and every shot is lethal. Do you want to continue?

When people complain about our overprotective society, in which kids can no longer play unsupervised and trivial deviances are illegal, paintball is a useful outlet. I saw kids as young as 12 sign up to play. Few things can compare with paintball for increasing self-esteem, simply because you realize that you just practiced kicking someone's ass. I recommend paintball to all the nice guys, all the geeks, all those who want to feel cooler just by paying a little cash and shooting some people from a toy gun.