site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   1773 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 13, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel really embarrassed at the idea of attending a meetup. Unfortunately, local to me that might be one of the best ways to meet people (single women). I know so many people who swear by them and I'm sure there's something to it.

But idk why I feel this deep disgust towards such things in my soul. I'm a big believer in doing things myself. A job that I find with my own merit would be infinitely preferable to one where I am refered. A date that I get by asking a girl out is infinitely more exciting than one setup by a friend.

Most people don't care! But why does the thought of this make me dizzy?

If you want to get at the root of your embarrassment, try flipping the scenarios around.

A job that I find with my own merit would be infinitely preferable to one where I am refered.

An employee found by making a job posting and collecting external applications would be preferable to one found through the referrals of existing employees.

A date that I get by asking a girl out is infinitely more exciting than one setup by a friend.

A date that a girl goes on because some guy asked her out is more exciting than one set up by a friend who knows her preferences.

Do those flipped statements seem correct to you? If not, what's the salient difference between them?

Something to keep in mind for that impulse against being setup or referred. You chose to associate and build relationships with the people that set you up or referred you.

Secondarily, do you ever recommend, encourage, and create opportunities for others? Do you do it because those recipients are lesser? Take the longer view that they are creating opportunities for you as well.

All except the worst sinecures still require the recipient to perform after they get the foot in the door. They still have to convince the blind date for another, still have to make friends under their own power at a meetup, and still meet performance quotas at a job.

one of the best ways to meet people (single women).

Be careful. If you attend meetups -- those that are not designated as "singles" events -- to pick up women, they'll sniff you out, and you'll have a bad time.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here, unless you're using a very specific definition of meetup. You would presumably still have to ask out any girls you met at such an event yourself, just as you would those you meet at work/school/etc. and you're not really the one calling the shots or setting things up in those situations either. If you only want to get a girlfriend by cold approaching women in the street or at bars and clubs, that seems like an unnecessary imposition on yourself and one that will make your life infinitely harder, but I wish you the best of luck.

What is a meetup exactly?

But whenever you have a hang up with someone ask yourself why. Often the answer is pride, so the follow-up question is - what is more important, getting the thing done or getting it done your way?

what is more important, getting the thing done or getting it done your way?

I suppose it comes down to dependency vs self sufficiency.

It's kind of demeaning, per OP's examples, to have friends set up dates and jobs for you or resorting to open invitation public events to meet people. I won't argue that it can't be effective but there's something about the means tainting the ends. Do you deserve that job, or are you a charity case who couldn't do it on his own merit?

And with some extension the ends in turn taint the means; are you friends because you like that person, and are you at this event because it's interesting in itself, or is it because you had an ulterior need that you're using them to achieve.

The mature attitude is probably to recognise that it's an amount of both and that it's not that important in the end. But the ego likes things simple and binary, and there's a degree of maturity in accepting that the ego doesn't disappear just because we can recognise when it's irrational.

I mean this is a personal question that OP needs to answer, come to terms with the answer, and then act accordingly.

Both options are fine as long as the outcome isn't paramount, but if the plan is somewhat ego dystonic you get this angst.

Interesting. So the tension between seeing yourself one way while seeing yourself acting in a contrary way... Is it possible to integrate that in a decoupled manner or must it be a case of altering one of the aspects to produce a more stable sense of alignment? Is there any refuge in the irrational via humour and laughing at one's own absurdity?

I mean there's an entire type of therapy focused around the idea of managing seemingly opposite impulses, but nothing so fancy need be used here, I just think there's an element of "what do you actually want here" that needs to be assessed first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats