|
October 15, 2003Investing In People(Ed. note: this is the canned follow-up to the rather controversial "Number" post. It was written two days ago. There may be an epilogue to address items raised after this was written and "Number" was posted. Enjoy!) While visiting with my old friend, I told her the story of demonstrating the ease of getting a phone number an attractive and seemingly unapproachable woman. I then shared that I had not called her, and as one might expect, she asked why. I answered honestly when others have answered the same question. The woman failed to hold my interest for more than ninety seconds. I had shared the same to others by phone, but seeing it written. It appeared rather harsh. I quickly tried to explain myself so as to not seem as harsh. After visiting with her about that issue (among many others), something still nagged at me to reevaluate this filter of holding my attention for more than ninety seconds. Foremost and chief of the nagging feeling is the impression that it may well be a bald display of arrogance. Almost as if saying that holding my attention for an arbitrary amount of time was directly related to a person’s worth or value to me and in my estimation. Using such a yardstick, based purely on my own subjective perception just didn’t feel right. The thought bothered me and reminded me of when as a younger man I confidently had an initial four pronged litmus test. The litmus test consisted of these hurdles: Southern Baptist, intelligent, proportional in figure, and Republican. Fortunately for me, I was flexible in whether a lady fulfilled all four. Gratefully, it grew into a much more tolerant selection process. By loosening those requirements, I have had the very great privilege of dating many fascinating ladies and getting to know many wonderful people. Similarly, it occurred to me that perhaps my ninety-second filter was preventing me from meeting other fascinating people. To be sure, not everyone we meet necessarily piques our interest in a mere minute and a half. To hold a person to such a standard only slightly less demanding is than a commercial (which must capture your interest in the first moments). Given my experience in campaign politics and my derision of modern mass media advertising in that arena, it is not surprising that a ninety-second rule caused me some unease. The sum of a person is so much more than ninety seconds of conversation. I sought to remember and understand how I had come to a ninety-second rule. Returning to politics, it dawned on quickly. In my first campaign, I ran a field operation of 25 counties for a Republican Congressional candidate in one of the most Democratic districts per capita in the nation. An essential skill for operating that many sub-campaign organizations, handling advance, advising on agriculture and economic development issues, plus handling whatever crises developed, while driving such a large geographical area, all it added up for extremely long days and a need to make lightning quick assessments of the person you’re trying to recruit or the audience you’re trying to persuade. The problem in assessing people was that the district was in the Delta south. The place famed for folks smiling in your face and never mentioning something untoward even though it might be glaringly obvious. Folks there are masters of being polite and courteous and making you feel welcome even when they would rather you leave. (do any of you remember what the pineapple at the foot of a guest’s bed at a plantation indicated?) Thus, one had to either be naturally gifted with seeing through the smiles and nice conversations or develop the skill quickly. Even those with it naturally must hone it quickly in that scenario. I was blessed to already have the skill and more times than not it saved me time and bridged the age gap I was facing (a young buck of 21). In any event, over the years, I have continued to use the quick assessment and at some point, it had become a modus operandi for me in my casual and personal relationships. I tried to explain and justify to my friend (and truth be told, to myself) by noting that my intention is to not get involved with just anyone for the sake of dating since the ultimate goal is to find “The One.” Further, that it was only fair to a lady and myself to avoid wasting time and energy on a fruitless expedition in the search for true love. Such expeditions tend to result in entanglements and latent issues that either keep us from our intended partner or presents challenges when we finally meet that partner at last. To erect such obstacles is counter productive at the least. The explanation didn’t hold water with me. And it led to this piece. And the further thoughts on the issue. The most precious commodity each of us own only to ourselves is our time. Once we have allowed time to slip by, we can never recover it. It is simply gone. The manner in which we spend our time is an indication of that which we value. You can lose and regain most all other things in our earthly walk except for time. As I sit her writing, I signal that I value this exercise more than watching television, talking to another person, sleeping, or any number of pursuits. Of the time available to me at this moment, I am placing the highest value on the opportunity to write. For the time being, the other options are not as compelling or personally valuable. When considered in such a context, the ninety-second rule appears reasonable. I can know of no compelling reason to spend precious time on an activity not regarded as personally worthwhile. It is illogical to invest one’s most precious personal commodity in activity you do not deem valuable. Yet, one word from that sentence is where the complete discussion turns. The question of whether to invest or not. Investment is an entirely different creature than expenditure. We invest in the hope to earn a positive return. We spend and expend to satisfy a current necessity or desire. We spend to satisfy a desire for a trendy new pair of shoes, to see a popular movie, to fulfill the need to eat or sleep. We invest to have a comfortable retirement, to grow our personal assets, to earn a reward by sacrificing momentary desires. We satisfy the inclination of the moment at the expense of either present need or future reward. When I began to apply this understanding of the difference between spending and investing, I returned to the notion of a ninety-second rule. Upon reflection, we can see it in the form of an analogy with the stock market. How do we determine whether to invest in a person and hold shares of them? Shares, because you never own a person; you can only hope that they value you enough to issue you shares of their time and heart and soul. You must earn those shares of a person and you do so best by investing time in them. When selecting a stock or venture to invest the vast majority of your personal wealth into, we would most certainly devote much more time than ninety seconds to evaluate its worth. We scour its balance sheet, look at the P/Ls, possible ROI, market share, market capitalization, P/E, growth potential and any number of other attributes. And then, we’d finally ask ourselves “do I believe this is the best place to invest the vast majority of my resources?” At times, all of the normal indicators of worthiness indicate that we should move forward, yet something in our hearts tells us that while it all looks good on paper, this opportunity is not for me. Other times, all of our trusted barometers scream for us to not invest in the opportunity, but an unexplainable voice from our heart convinces us to invest. In each instance, there are hidden wrinkles that elude our careful examination. It is the pitfalls of selecting how to invest our money. How many times have you heard someone say they wished they had invested in Company X, x number of years ago? Have you also heard people say I/you should have married X? I certainly have. If our most precious personal commodity is our time, and further our hearts and souls, should we not expend more time examining the opportunities, the available investments which we may pour forth the greatest future amount of our time, energy, and heart? Is a paltry ninety seconds sufficient to evaluate whether a person is worth investing more of our precious time? Looking at the volume of opportunities available to us can further complicate the question. As Sugarmama commented here: While you may not have a big dating pool in a small city, you have a very hard time in a big city picking out the gems from the crap in a large dating pool. With so many opportunities for you to invest your time, perhaps a ninety second rule has its uses in a heavily populated environment. Finally, my friend and I agreed with “who knows how it happens?” Each time it does, there is a different and very special story. As Sugarmama described in this post, and my friend discussed, sometimes it’s a matter of timing and you cannot control it. The value of the ninety-second rule remains unresolved to me, though I lean towards retiring it. Or at least using it less frequently. I like people. I like to know them. I am often compelled by a Piscean compulsion to help people (Exhibit A—dropping $30 bucks for a couple of young ladies getting basic groceries at the store last night whose check card was not working. No, I did not try to pick them up. Yes, I refused to give them a number, address, or email so they could re-pay me.) Whether this leads to a more certain path to find “The One” is unknown, and perhaps inconsequential. That event will happen in its own time and in a way of its own. Regardless, we will have one hell of a story to tell! Posted by Adam H at October 15, 2003 09:12 PM ~ Link Cosmos | Trackbacks (0)Comments
Oh goodness...If people used the 90 second test on me, no one would ever talk to me again. :P I'm a pretty shy person at first, and although I'd like to think I am kind and courteous to people, I don't feel very comfortable being all forthcoming until I know them a bit. Oooh I'd never be talked to ever! Lol. Posted by: Giz at October 15, 2003 11:07 PMYeah... the 90 second rule wouldn't work very well with me either. Some people just take a bit of warming up to. However, I tend to think you're putting way too much thought into analysing this... just let it happen! The more you think about it, the more complicated it's going to get, and then you're going to think about it MORE because it's so damn complicated, and on and on... it's just a vicious circle! Posted by: Ryan Waddell at October 16, 2003 08:30 AMI think you just have a gift for reading body language. As you get older, you get better at it. You're apparently very good at it. I've had those same feelings. You worry about it but you can tell you're not giving them what they want from you, and you won't give them what they want. The numbers complaint is not valid. That's more of that should/could nonsense. The reality is you have a pitch you use to talk to women, and part of that pitch is getting the number. While talking to them, you are registering responses and making evaluations. In the crowded area of a bar, and oftentimes under the influence of alcohol, you follow through with your pitch. Afterwards, you run through the encounter in your mind and make a decision on whether or not to call. If she had done more to keep your attention, or made it a point to indicate that she considered the meeting to be one filled with chemistry, you would have called. She was appreciative of the attention, though a bit standoffish. If she, or any other woman is angry about a man not calling back - it usually has to do with them wanting more attention and wanting their self-esteem pumped up. This was a chance meeting in a bar. Them's the rules. You're taking this grief, but how do you know if the number is real? (Well, we know it's real, because it's the SSG - but if it were a puny mortal) It's always about control. Women want to control how you approach them, but they never respect you when you don't break the rules. Their whining is another form of that control. If she's home crying because you didn't call, she wasn't worth it. What you should be worrying about is whether there were any women in that bar who if you had not called, would have shrugged their shoulders and honestly thought, "His Loss." Posted by: TheYeti at October 16, 2003 10:51 AMI agree with Ryan that you are thinking about this way too much. Ninety seconds is not long enough to judge anyone. For months before we started dating, I thought Mr. Sugarmama was a player who was shallow and only interested in mindless sex. I was wrong. When you meet a girl who fancies your interest, don't try to match up her qualities to the ones on your list. Just spend time getting to know her and see how well you interact together. My folks are polar opposites and have been married happily for over 30 years. I disagree with this comment: "It's always about control. Women want to control how you approach them, but they never respect you when you don't break the rules. Their whining is another form of that control." Not all women you date will attempt to undermine you and take control of you. Why do so many men think of women as a "ball and chain"? If you aren't able to treat a woman at least with as much respect as you have for yourself, then you do not have the capacity for a healthy relationship. Posted by: sugarmama at October 16, 2003 11:07 AMI agree with Sugarmama (in disagreeing with TheYeti). It's not always about control. Some girls who give a number are genuinely excited to hear from you. That's why when I get a girl's number, I also give her mine. If *she* calls *me* (if for reasons of shyness, or busy-ness, or a million other reasons I don't get around to calling her) then I know she's generally interested. And to hell with the norms of society, where it's supposed to be the man doing all the aggressing in the relationship. I would KILL to find me a girl that asks ME out on a date for a change. Posted by: Ryan Waddell at October 17, 2003 06:52 AM*just my 2 cents - hope i don't offend* I think Adam thinks about things too much, just like Ryan said.... when it's meant to be it will... just like when it's time for me to move on... it will happen... just a timing thing. AND I think The Yeti is too judgemental of the way women are anyways. He has these generalizations that are ridiculous and from what I have seen.... very much the minority of how women truly are and want to be treated. It's about respect..... NOT control. If I were to generalize men from only my experiences, every single one of them would be genuine ASSHOLES that are selfish, controlling, belittle women, and only please themselves in bed... lol.... BUT, I know not all men are like that and therefore, I don't generalize them like that.... I give everyone a fair chance... girls included (as friends... not potential lovers... lol) Ryan on the otherhand has such a better attitude on dating.... just let it happen..... Posted by: h at October 17, 2003 07:48 AMFor once, don't be that nice guy in the PG-13 who everyone wants to get the girl at the end. Generalizations by their very nature are not ridiculous. They're generalizations. And they work - and they're true, and they may not be the path to happiness, but it doesn't change the nature of the human experience. H makes the point about the men she dated without recognizing that the choices she made prove my point. Why would you date shallow, insensitive selfish assholes? Because they defied society? Because you wanted to change them? Control is not a bad thing - it's natural, and it's necessary. All human relationships in one way or another start with a struggle over control. Respect is not opposite control. Respect is about control. Wishing it away and claiming some type of superiority based on you being reasonable is insulting. And don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. Posted by: TheYeti at October 17, 2003 09:52 AMNo, I am unable to believe that a dating relationship is centered around exchanges of control. I am not interested in forcing someone I am dating to do anything. Managing conflict in an interpersonal relationship is not about who gets more power and ultimately wins a "power struggle". That attitude will make yourself miserable and hasten the end of a relationship. Posted by: sugarmama at October 17, 2003 10:50 AMMAybe if the men in my life would have been up front and honest and not put a show as to how they thought i would want them to be i wouldn't have been in the situations i had been in.... i wouldn't consider myself a submissive person and i don't put up with any shit and that would be why i didn't continue the relationships... all i was trying to say is that the small amount of relaionships that one has does not justify it as being the "norm" Posted by: ho at October 17, 2003 11:01 AMSugarmama - that only holds true if you feel control is a negative thing. When you go out on a date, and a man doesn't grab your breast - that is control. You set boundaries, and he respects them. That's a good thing. It helps both of you learn more about each other, leads to good flirting, and is a natural biological process. I'm not equating conflict with control. You are reacting to a word, not a thought. When you obey a police officer directing traffic, you are allowing yourself to be controlled. When a child is held by the hand in a grocery store, he is under control. Every action you take is a tug-of-war between control and complete freedom. Why would it be different in a relationship? Managing conflict? No. You accept degrees of control in return for expecting your partner to do the same. The problem now is women are so focused on their independence they forgot that expecting men to toe the line is part and parcel of a relationship. It goes both ways. We expect you not to go bang some guy in a bar. That isn't control? H - So now you're blaming the men? You chose to date them. You set the boundaries they crossed, and ultimately decided they weren't good enough. If your dating life is unsatisfactory, it's your fault. Yours. You set the rules. Stamping your feet petulantly and complaining about the actions of others is a sign of weakness. Having the strength to say that this is who I am and this is how you will treat me is a surefire recipe for finding someone. Adam and I recognize this - and are trying to put it into words - precisely because we are real men. We both can get laid by playing the games the women like, but realize that it is not in our or your best interest to do so. So rather than attacking me for tryng to identify where so many unhappy single people go wrong, maybe you ought to get on the bandwagon and start looking at your choices as the cause of all your happiness and sorrow. Or not. Your choice. Wouldn't want to control you. Posted by: TheYeti at October 17, 2003 11:44 AMSome blog comments with an article from the Washington Post. Posted by: TheYeti at October 17, 2003 11:51 AMI never said I Was blaming MEN... i simply said that the ones I have been with have given me false impressions of who they really were and what they were really like..... sorry, but it's the truth. If I generalized all men to be like the ones i have been with, i would choose to be with women...... But, instead, I have been a strong woman and picked up the pieces and moved on. anyone that knows me knows that I am NOT a weak woman.... I have been through hell, but I have turned everything around into a positive learning experience.... if that is what you call weak, then so be it. I was not attacking you, just your perception of women. Posted by: ho at October 17, 2003 12:56 PMAnd I was not attacking you - rather I was attacking your analysis of my perception of women. You left the guys - which shows that you indeed were setting standards. Posted by: TheYeti at October 17, 2003 01:30 PMYeti, I think you are confusing control with respect. Despite your attempts at justification, I think that you used a generalization of women that is disrespectful and inaccurate. I wouldn't date a man who operates with that attitude. Posted by: sugarmama at October 17, 2003 01:32 PM If I'm following the the Yeti right, I don't think he's equating control with putting someone on a leash. It's more about behavior (reaction to the behavior) and setting boundaries (reaction to the boundaries). For example, if a woman doesn't kiss on the first date, we'll assume she will send signals to that effect; the man then choses to ignore or respect those signals. Both are examples of control: she is displaying control by setting the boundary and he is displaying control by respecting or ignoring the boundary. Posted by: Jan at October 17, 2003 01:52 PMyeti - you were insinuating that i was a weak woman. "If your dating life is unsatisfactory, it's your fault. Yours. You set the rules. Stamping your feet petulantly and complaining about the actions of others is a sign of weakness." That's all I have to say. Posted by: ho at October 17, 2003 01:58 PM"We both can get laid by playing the games the women like, but realize that it is not in our or your best interest to do so." What women are these? The 21 year old bimbo in the bar? The women you both describe meeting in your daily lives are hardly going to give you a run for your money. You both have interesting theories about women. You've obviously given a lot of thought to the male/female relationship. However, I hardly think generalizing women as game-players who are looking to get laid shows much respect. Beth - great comment! Posted by: ho at October 17, 2003 03:45 PMAdam did not attempt to use the 91 second rule. He was not trying to get to know the woman in ninety seconds, he was trying to obtain a number and therefore prove a point to his friend. He did not mention anything about trying to get to know her in a certain amount of time, he went up there with the sole intentions of recieving a number. So the debate to me is not so much about whether his system works (hey, if it does, in general -- and you don't mind exceptions, go for it), but the fact that he was playing the overused "nice" guy role, and at the same time, judged a woman only on her looks, made assumptions about her personality and feelings about her crow's feet, and then made a fool of her because he was not really as interested in getting to know her as he was in helping his ego by proving he could get the girl's number. Posted by: Catherine at October 18, 2003 03:03 PMDescribing her physical characteristics is a literary tool. I'm sure he read a lot more into the way she sat, her tone of voice, and her response to his inquiries then he can communicate in a short while. She sounded undesirable to him by his description. I think he succeeded. If she had put out a different vibe, the crow's feet would have become laugh lines and the other descriptions wordly, sensual, down-to-earth, and expressive. Posted by: TheYeti at October 20, 2003 10:20 AMWomen do the SAME thing as any guy when dating. In fact I think women are WAY more into "tests" and crap than men. Women have all of the power in the initial meet and dating aspects of a relationship. I am so sick and tired of women's games i.e. indicating its okay for you to talk to them at first and then SLAMMING the door shut for no apparent reason almost immediately. WTF is that shit? I am 30 years old for pete's sake, not 15. If you want guys talking to you DONT RESPOND to opening lines or start idle talk with a man. Being "flirty" is a sign to men that you are receptive to a man's advances -- its not being "friendly." Okay? Posted by: Neo at December 7, 2003 01:11 AMThat should have been "If you don't want guys talking to you..." I guess. Women here is how you can stop this crap: if a guy comes up and appears interested IMMEDIATELY say "I'm not interested." That's it. Don't smile and fling your hair or shit like that. Just SAY so. It doesn't take 90 seconds, it takes 5 seconds to determine if there is potential there or not including looking at the person and hearing them speak a sentence (whiny voices, bumbling, horrible laugh etc). Yeah, I am bitter. A lot of women are just plain EVIL. And I seem to always find them. Posted by: Neo at December 7, 2003 01:16 AMInfo on Levaquin tablets online. Posted by: side effects of Levaquin at October 13, 2004 03:07 PMPost a comment
 
|
