I hear what you’re saying but I’m not sure I understand something… How would you be less you by being a bit more outgoing? Your values, quirks, physical attributes would all still be the same. You’d just appear more accessable and easy to approach. Surely that can’t be a bad thing.
Of course, like you say, to each their own. 
Good point, and oddly enough, most people I do meet do not perceive me as shy. At least that as what they tell me.
I seem to be the one who perceives myself as shy.
However, I also notice that my boyfriend, who is very similar in nature to me, recognized right away that I truly am shy on the inside in many ways. And that was what he found attractive in me. My weaknesses, my quirks.
I find those same weaknesses and quirks attractive in him.
Just chiming in to say some of us face the same problems. I most likely wouldn’t meet elmwood’s criteria, maybe I fall in the second-tier of desirability after that first sought-after twenty percent. Ninety percent of the emails I get are from guys that have nothing in common with me, not income bracket or personal beliefs or hobbies, hell most of them are barely literate. It’s certainly not exclusively a guys only issue.
Stranger you suggest a meeting on a first email? That weirds me out, it’s an online service, I guess I expect to exchange a few emails and/or IM with a new person, y’know get to know them online a little, before I book a first date. Guys who’s first-contact emails contain phone numbers get a polite no-thanks in return, just seems odd to me.
Errrg…I know you aren’t trying to be pejorative here, but I’ve heard the “shy=selfish” rationale before, and it doesn’t set very well with me. While some people may be so self-absorbed and narcissistic that they’d rather focus on themselves and their appearence than interact with someone else, that’s quite a bit different than being shy or having difficulty making conversation.
Personally, I have a very difficult time reading body language and nuances in facial expression; hence, I don’t pick up on cues that I’m saying something boring or otherwise failing to interact in an expected manner. This seems to be an innate quality, similar to the difficulty experienced by someone with an ASD (though in other ways I don’t fall under that category). I’ve done some therapy to attempt to become better at it but it only works with conscious, deliberate effort and at the cost of genuinely interacting on a subconscious level, the nebulous “chemistry” that people are looking for, I guess.
I can make “conversation” just fine…as long as I:
[ul]
[li]Have a “script” (as in a job interview),[/li][li]can converse by just asking questions Dale Carnegie-style,[/li][li]can monologue on a topic, or[/li][li]Hi, Opal![/li][/ul]
For instance, on the last “coffee date” I had (actually at a bar) the lass in question mentioned that she didn’t trust electronic voting systems. I proceded to explain how the Diebold machines were insecure, but that a system based upon using the RSA algorithm and open source public/private key encryption like GPG would allow a secure, yet anonymous method for recording and verifying votes. “You see, it’s based on using large, pseudo-random numbers that are relatively prime…” I went on in this vein for two or three minutes before I was aware that she was about to fall face first into her beer in boredom. Clearly, she wasn’t impressed. On the other hand, her attempts to engage me in conversation about sports, television, fashion, family, the behavior of the two lesbians making out over in the corner, et cetera, left me without response. It wasn’t (just) that I didn’t want to make an ass of myself (I’d already done a ripping job of that) but I just didn’t have anything much to say, other than, “Um, I don’t really follow sports” and “Er, I don’t really have any family.” Rather a conversational dead end, and mercifully, she made some excuse of having papers to grade, invited me to correspond by email (after previously indicating that she wasn’t interested in a penpal relationship–I’m kind of proud that I picked up on that cue) and we went seperate ways.
But normally, I don’t even get to the point of boring a potential date. Clearly, I’m sending forth some indication of my conversational dullness well in advance of incoming fire.
Either that, or there’s a vast right-wing conspiracy among women to keep me dateless. :dubious:
Stranger
I am afraid I did a disservice to the show if it came across as she was being coached to be something totally different than she was. The fact was that she was a lovely girl. Her problem was that she was doing certain things that prevented others from getting the chance know what a great person she was. She agreed to be a participantin the study because she was hoping to meet someone, but never did when she attended social functions. She didn’t understand why. They were able to point out why.
The researchers gave her a few tips on being more approachable, and let her know that her reluctance to speak what was on her mind was hurting her chances of meeting someone. She didn’t change her personality. She was still the same girl, but by a few simple changes, she was now able to have someone approach her, get a positive response, and then could let the new person see that she was a wonderful, sincere girl. The way she was before made her appear to be an insecure or aloof girl, and not many men responded to her that way. So really they were just encouraging her to let her true self be seen, not hide it away in fear of looking silly or being rejected. She didn’t need to be a different person, she just needed to come across differently.
Stranger on a Train–Maybe you would be better off hanging out in places where you would meet people who share your interests. The only thing I really pick up from your anecdote about the bad coffee date was that you and this woman didn’t have interests in common. Sometimes people just don’t click. It might not reflect anything that’s wrong with you.
Hmm…I hadn’t thought of it in that way. I really don’t like IMing–I did plenty of that in college, back when it was chatting on a VMS mainframe over BITNET–and the few times I’ve corresponded with someone repeatedly by e-mail it has petered out, or responses are annoying sporadic. I never really seem to get a sense of someone across e-mail, either, and ditto the other way; I seem to come off as being far more witty and intelligent via the keyboard than in person, leading to the inevitable disappointment.
I kind of look at on-line dating the same way as newspaper personals (with which I had equally bad experience backintheday); that they are a way to hook up (not in the sexual sense) with someone of roughly common interests, and then meet, rather than trade phone calls or messages indefinitely. But perhaps I need to rethink that approach. Hmmm…
Stranger
That’s close ot my strategy, except that I haven’t written Opal let. 
I e-mail women who are in my league; they’re probably just swamped in mail and not totally overwhelmed and flooded.
I don’t send e-mail to women with numerical or physical preferences I don’t meer (height, age, income, body type).
I look for members who have been around the longest who have been online most recently; they probably aren’t getting as much mail as the fresh blood. I will e-mail a newbie if I feel a click, though.
I don’t e-mail those whose profiles barely describe themselves, but which do delve into great detail about their ideal man - even if it describes somebody like me.
I don’t write to women with a photo showing a pose in a swimsuit or leotard; again, they’re probably swamed with e-mail from horny guys.
I don’t respond to cliche-laden profiles; there’s nothing to grab onto if I attempted a response. You’ve seen the ads before:
Can you keep up? I’m a kind, caring woman who works hard and plays hard. I love walks in the park, strolls along a moonlit beach, candlelit dinners, and lying by the fireplace with that special someone while sippng a fine merlot. I like going out and staying at home, and being active or just sitting on the couch. I love to laugh! I like to pamper and be pampered. I want a man who knows what he wants. I’m looking for a knight in shining armor to sweep me off my feet. Must be honest, kind, generous, athleticl, very attractive and tall, and equally comfortable in jeans or a tux. No games or players!
<hijack> Incidentally, Stranger, if you would, please help fight my ignorance on a few things you mentioned in your last post. What’s an RSA algorithm, what’s an open source public/private key encryption (I know those words are in English, but concatenated like that they’re not making any sense to me) and what does “relatively prime” mean? I know what “prime” means, but how could something be “relatively prime”? I mean, as far as I can tell, numbers are either prime or non-prime. <hijack>
Oh, and the fact that you realize that it’s hard to get a real sense for what someone’s like over IM is a sign that you don’t really have that hard a time reading people. IM is like speech, only with all the non-verbal aspects stripped away. I often find IM frustrating, because I can’t hear the other person’s tone of voice or convey my own. If you realize that the non-verbal parts of a conversation are important, you probably know how to read non-verbal signals.
Maybe. If there are sites that are dedicated to your area, that might have the implication that you’ll meet sooner rather than later?
Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you mean now. Like Stranger, the word “selfish” being equated with “shy” didn’t sit well with me. I do sometimes worry if I will say the wrong thing when conversing with new people, but it is not because I am “selfish” and don’t want to make a fool of myself. It is more a “fear” of perhaps finding out we have different values and not wanting to offend or be offended if that happens to be the case. It’s the reason I try to keep my mouth shut on the political debates here on the Dope. 
This should help (and will be a lot clear and less tangential than my explaination would be, no doubt.) It doesn’t define relative primes, which are two numbers that don’t have any factors (other than 1) in common; for instance, 28 and 45 would be relatively prime. A good, very simple book on public key cryptology is In Code: A Mathematical Journey. It was written by a teenage Irish girl who developed a new (if eventually flawed) public key cryptographic system, and is quite informative without getting too technical.
The Wiki on the RSA algorithm is here.
Hey…you’re not falling asleep, are you?
Um…well, not quite. I have a definite problem reading signals–that has been confirmed by neurological testing–but I also have trouble maintaining interest in a phone conversation (which, frankly I attribute to what is left of modern phone edicate, i.e. watching television, talking to other people, eating, driving, while spending some minimum of attention to the conversation.) I’ve been described as “intense” in conversation; either I’m making too much eye contact and am too interested in details, or I’m shooting off apparent non-sequiturs and not making enough eye contact and putting out body language signals.
My idea of a good conversation is trading classic movie quotes, talking about nucleation points in a glass of beer, and discussing the ins and outs of evolutionary zoology. I was fortunate, a few years ago, to meet a young lady who felt the same way, and unfortuante, a year or so later, to lose her interest. The “making small talk” thing–I just don’t have a grasp on it, despite trying to develop the skill, either in person or on-line.
Stranger
[QUOTE=Stranger On A TrainThe “making small talk” thing–I just don’t have a grasp on it, despite trying to develop the skill, either in person or on-line.
Stranger[/QUOTE]
But that’s what we’re all doing here now. Making small talk. On a variety of subjects having nothing to do with rocket science and… uh…relatively prime numbers… <beating head on desk cuz I’ve retained nothing from my math and comp. sci. program>.
You’re certainly holding up your own end and lots of people’s interest.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Errrg…I know you aren’t trying to be pejorative here, but I’ve heard the “shy=selfish” rationale before, and it doesn’t set very well with me. While some people may be so self-absorbed and narcissistic that they’d rather focus on themselves and their appearence than interact with someone else, that’s quite a bit different than being shy or having difficulty making conversation.
I had to look up the word pejorative, thanks for teaching me a new word. No I definately was not trying to be pejorative. I am very introverted, and was labeled be labeled shy by most who met me in any other enviornment but work. I was not comfortable in most social situations. I couldn’t make small talk easily like most people could. I found no use for small talk. If I was going to have a conversation with someone I wanted it to be of something interesting, something that could be useful, to learn or be introduced to new ideas.
But the reality was, you can’t have those deep meaningful conversations with someone until you meet them. And to meet them, you need to go through a certain amount of trivial small talk. Once you get the small talk out of the way, then if there is something there, you can pursue it. If not, then move on.
My trouble with making conversation was that I knew I wasn’t good at the small talk, and would just avoid it. This made it very hard to get to the point where what I considered a really good conversation could happen. Once I gave in, and learned to make small talk, I found I was able to have many more interesting conversations. Yes, number wise there were very few that turned into something really special, but those that did, were worth the many others that didn’t.
So all I am saying, and what the show pointed out, is that if you are not currently having the success you want, then take a good hard look at what you are doing and make some changes. You don’t have to become a different person, but maybe a few small changes could get you closer to what it is you are looking for.
:smack: preview… :smack: preview… :smack: preview… :smack:
Ok… you have a house, hair, a job, not fat, not tall and decent looking.
What does that offer a woman reading a profile? Zilch. Everyone else on there is just like you. By reading your profile you sound very average and unremarkable.
I’m not saying that to be mean, but to point out that you didn’t say anything that gets anyone’s attention. I’ll bet your profile is pretty much the equivalent of a box of detergent that’s white, has black lettering and says “Cleans clothes good.” on the side, and not much else.
Online dating is all about… ALL ABOUT marketing. It’s about catching their eye in the profile searches, and getting them to read it. It’s about making them read your emails. It’s about making them interested. It’s not about YOU.
For an example, I’m about 6’1", which isn’t too tall, when I was online dating I was about 230 lbs, and I was in graduate school with no real income. I’m decent looking also.
Know what? I probably got 3 unsolicited emails a week from women for something like a year, and I’m pretty convinced that it’s due to my profile.
Basically what I did is looked at a lot of girl profiles and what they’re looking for, and modeled my profile on it. I didn’t say a single solitary word about what I want- I talked about what I like to do with girls (on dates), and what all kinds of fun I have. None of this “I want a girl who’s nice and wants walks on teh beach” bullshit.
That’s the problem- most guys online look at online dating like catfishing- throw out your bait and wait. They should look at it like wade fishing- see what the fish signs are, wade over there, and throw your lures right on top of the fish.
I’d get bored with ICQ or emails if I were trapped in undending small talk conversations, too. Small talk online is generally a waste of time. You aren’t in the person’s presence, so you don’t glean anything from inconsequential exchanges.
In my personal ad, I made a joke about Nietzsche. In his reply, Steve made a joke about red shift. I noticed him in all that flood because he made me laugh and didn’t say the expected. He was just himself.
Thanks for the info, Stranger. And, no, I’m not falling asleep. I might do that in about an hour, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with your links. If I were bored by getting answers to questions I’d asked, I wouldn’t have asked the questions in the first place.
In Code looks pretty interesting. I’ll have to check it out.
And this in a way is making the point I was trying to make. You responed to his profile, even though he didn’t respond to yours. You were willing to take a risk, put yourself out there because you really wanted to meet this guy. Most “shy” people could never do that. You made an effort, and it paid off really well for you. So even if someone is “shy” or “introverted”, sometimes they need to step out of that so they can find what they are looking for. You are still the same girl, you just stepped out of your comfort zone and gave him a chance to know you. Good for you!
Uhhh … really?
(The page is on my server. I’m deleting the page in a short while, because I don’t want this post to appear like it’s circumventing new Chicago Reader policies.)