![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hard-wiring
May. 31st, 2007 10:33 amThere was an interesting radio programme on Radio Four a couple of nights ago, featuring Jon Ronson, columnist in the Observer. To be frank, Ronson in the Observer often comes across as the kind of person I would not get on with, but I can't deny that this programme made riveting listening.
It concerned a woman who signed up for an Internet dating site. The "story" was that a guy she met turned out to be a con man, who pretended that he was a CIA agent.
But the story beneath the story, for me, was the woman. And many of the questions raised by her account were not picked up on by Ronson.
First, she talks of her first two "failures". She said that the first guy was "very nice, liked him a lot, but there was no spark".
The second was the "axe-murderer round the corner" (no further details supplied on this one, but I think I know what she means).
The third as a very nice charming guy. And what was it that attracted her? It was the little things, such as always walking on the outside of the pavement, and never taking the last bit of the shared bottle of water whenin a restaurant; "those small things which showed that he was always thinking of how I felt".
Except, he wasn't. He was a sociopathic compulsive liar. All of his behaviour was learned, not true empathy.
Now, hasn't it yet occurred to women how easy it is to learn these "little things"? How, in fact, they signify absolutely nothing at all apart from the fact that the seducer knows that these things impress?
Well, apparently not.
Perhaps I might apparently be unfair to womenhood as a whole here, but I think that more interesting is her comment on the first guy. "He was very nice, but there was no spark".
Let's face it, in this game, nice guys do not finish first. r Y mentioned a chap that we both know, one of the nicest guys in the poker world, who was lamenting his total failure with the opposite sex. And the answer is simple. he's too bright, and he's too nice.
I know these "tricks" as well as the next man. Part of my problem is that I see them as tricks and I assume that any intelligent woman will see them as the same. But they aren't. These little tricks still make a difference, even if she knows you know she knows they are learned behaviour, rather than instinctive.
But I still had most of my successes with women when drunk, rather than sober. Now, drunkenness may wwell give you Dutch courage, but one thing you do not associate with drunkenness is "being nice".
Let's return to our con-man. It transpired that he was a bigamist, and that he had fathered at least eleven children via seven women (including one via this particular woman). So, let's get this right, in reproductive terms, the "nice" guy (with whom there was no spark) will probably die childless, while the sociopath who knew that women were impressed by him walking on the outside of the pavement, has fathered eleven. The man who "learned" the simple tricks of women-pleasing behaviour, (but who was also a child abuser, a matter I throw in as a by-the-by) seems to have had no trouble in passing on his genes. In terms of reproductive capacity, sociopathy seems to work.
Worrying, or what?
____________________
It concerned a woman who signed up for an Internet dating site. The "story" was that a guy she met turned out to be a con man, who pretended that he was a CIA agent.
But the story beneath the story, for me, was the woman. And many of the questions raised by her account were not picked up on by Ronson.
First, she talks of her first two "failures". She said that the first guy was "very nice, liked him a lot, but there was no spark".
The second was the "axe-murderer round the corner" (no further details supplied on this one, but I think I know what she means).
The third as a very nice charming guy. And what was it that attracted her? It was the little things, such as always walking on the outside of the pavement, and never taking the last bit of the shared bottle of water whenin a restaurant; "those small things which showed that he was always thinking of how I felt".
Except, he wasn't. He was a sociopathic compulsive liar. All of his behaviour was learned, not true empathy.
Now, hasn't it yet occurred to women how easy it is to learn these "little things"? How, in fact, they signify absolutely nothing at all apart from the fact that the seducer knows that these things impress?
Well, apparently not.
Perhaps I might apparently be unfair to womenhood as a whole here, but I think that more interesting is her comment on the first guy. "He was very nice, but there was no spark".
Let's face it, in this game, nice guys do not finish first. r Y mentioned a chap that we both know, one of the nicest guys in the poker world, who was lamenting his total failure with the opposite sex. And the answer is simple. he's too bright, and he's too nice.
I know these "tricks" as well as the next man. Part of my problem is that I see them as tricks and I assume that any intelligent woman will see them as the same. But they aren't. These little tricks still make a difference, even if she knows you know she knows they are learned behaviour, rather than instinctive.
But I still had most of my successes with women when drunk, rather than sober. Now, drunkenness may wwell give you Dutch courage, but one thing you do not associate with drunkenness is "being nice".
Let's return to our con-man. It transpired that he was a bigamist, and that he had fathered at least eleven children via seven women (including one via this particular woman). So, let's get this right, in reproductive terms, the "nice" guy (with whom there was no spark) will probably die childless, while the sociopath who knew that women were impressed by him walking on the outside of the pavement, has fathered eleven. The man who "learned" the simple tricks of women-pleasing behaviour, (but who was also a child abuser, a matter I throw in as a by-the-by) seems to have had no trouble in passing on his genes. In terms of reproductive capacity, sociopathy seems to work.
Worrying, or what?
____________________
