Brent’s original theory – Men and Women Can’t Be Friends has already been so completely refuted that I won’t even concern myself with that. I will simply reference Brent’s gravity analogy in his third post and say this: Brent you say your theory is like saying gravity exists and then argue it can’t be refuted by anecdotal evidence such as space travel. However, no one is arguing that “gravity” doesn’t exist. Everyone would agree that romantic feelings are very real and exist often. Your theory is that “gravity” cannot be defied, i.e. romantic feelings can never be avoided, and the anecdotal evidence clearly shows that friendships can occur b/w Opposites without romance. Blast on astronauts.
Here is my summary of how Brent’s theory is currently defined: If you are in the “romantic stage” of your life, you cannot become friends with an Opposite, without there either being some romantic impetus or some romantic feeling developing at some point in the relationship, unless you become friends through transference. With transference being defined as any other reason you would want to become friends with an Opposite (you work with them, they are friends with your significant other, they are friends with their other friends, you need someone to share emotional experiences with but are not or are incapable of being in a romantic relationship, etc, etc).
Although, I believe I could refute even this, in order to move on to what I consider more interesting discussions, I will agree with Brent, that if I have no other reason to be friends with an Opposite (no transference) and the Opposite has no other reason to be friends with me, we will not become friends without a romantic element.
So what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
I had thought that Brent’s theory might have been, and to a certain extent it probably actually is, that there can never be a relationship between Opposites that doesn’t have a romantic element. That would have been a difficult theory to refute. But even if that is taken as the theory, the question is again, so what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
Here are some of my main objections to Brent’s theories, and some of the comments.
The critique of anecdotal objections: really Brent’s whole theory is based on his own anecdotes. I am more than willing to accept that Brent has never had a friendship, as he defines it, with a girl that has not involved romantic issues. I can only also assume that for Brent any potential friendship with a girl that began because of romantic interest has been in some sense “tainted” or had the “slightest tinge of weirdness.” But that is just Brent’s own anecdotal evidence presented as empirical evidence. The only attempts at non-anecdotal analysis are really Laurie’s biological comment and Amy’s Biblical comment.
I think there is a lot of truth to Laurie’s biological argument for the subject group that Brent has limited his theory to, heterosexuals. To respond, I paraphrase some famous person, “the difference between humans and animals is that humans can control their biological desires.” For Laurie’s argument to be the end all, we would have be slaves to our biological tendencies and desires. We aren’t, or shouldn’t be. By Brent’s definition of friendship, I am friends with my mom. I probably run more important decisions and issues by her than any other person. I’m not romantically attracted to her. She’s my mom. But the same applies to my sister, or my sister-in-laws. If it was all biological, I would be male, they would be female, there would have to be romantic interest. Indeed according to Brent, his home state has many members of the same family who have given into these romantic desires. I believe that just as with Opposites within our family, we can discipline ourselves to not have romantic feelings for Opposites outside our families, or we can let our desires control us.
To summarize, I think it is pretty clear now that Opposites can be friends. I believe what is really happening is that those agreeing with Brent (and maybe Brent himself) think that you shouldn’t be friends with Opposites. They are taking his theory to another level: taking as true that Opposite friendships have or develop romantic elements, they conclude that those are always bad outside a romantic relationship, and therefore all Opposite friendships should be avoided.
To delve a little bit into Amy’s comment, I think Jesus was friends with women. The big difference between Jesus and us, is that Jesus had complete control over his desires. So he could be friends with a woman without having romantic incentives or developing romantic feelings. He proves that a friendship with an Opposite without any romantic dimension is possible. I think most people who have commented so far, believe humans aren’t capable of doing the same, and therefore need to avoid friendships with Opposites.
So what does one do?
Do you avoid building friendships with roughly half the population because you might be unable to control romantic desires that may develop?
Do you acknowledge the romantic and develop precautions to prevent acting on the romantic? What are appropriate, practical and effective precautions?
Once you are in a romantic relationship, is the only acceptable thing to never become friends with an Opposite? It seems you can’t say, well you can only becomes friends with Opposites through transference, because no matter how the relationship originates there is still the potential to develop romantic dimensions?
Is any friendship with romantic dimensions that doesn’t rise to the level of a romantic relationship, automatically inappropriate? Even if the romantic dimension is never acted on? (Let me provide a little context. Eddie is a slightly better athlete than me. Sometimes being his friend, I feel jealously that I am not as athletic as he is. Jealously is clearly not a healthy or appropriate emotion. Sometimes because I am jealous I yell at or get mad at Eddie. Because my friendship with Eddie has a inappropriate jealous dimension, should I not be Eddie’s friend?)
Should we just bury our heads in the sand and not discuss these difficult issues?
To close with a personal anecdote, I believe I have friends who are girls. There are girls other than Lindsay and my mom that I would go to talk about serious issues and who would be there to listen and provide advice. I have female friends who are better at giving advice on certain subjects, not necessarily because they are girls, but because of their individual personalities, knowledge and experiences. For example, if I had a difficult legal ethics question, I would most likely consult Kristen and she would be there to listen. I think we are friends. (Kristen, it won’t hurt my feelings if you comment that you don’t think we are friends.) And while I believe Kristen is beautiful inside and out and that Clayton will probably never fully realize how lucky he is, I am unaware of ever having a romantic feeling towards Kristen. Again, it’s irrelevant to me if I became friends with Kristen through transference, because Brent’s theory is that romance can either be the incentive or it can develop. So if Brent is right then Kristen and I must be in the Danger Zone. I don’t think we are.
I’m not saying that in Opposite friendships anything goes. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be nothing goes.
P.S. – I’m in Atlanta with Kris-I’m-More-Athletic-Than-The -Average-Obese-American-18-Year-Old-Norris.
I walk in and notice the nerf goal on his door and say, “Cool, a nerf goal.” He says, “Nerf basketball is pretty much the sport I’m best at.” Me, “How does one play nerf basketball?” Him, “It’s just HORSE.”
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
To Be Continued...
As VZ eluded to in his comment, he will providing a counter-theory next week so the debate continues...
I feel like this has been a great week for my first post. Thanks for all your comments and insights. You really made me think about the theory in a new way.
Chad, I stand by your brilliance.
Laurie, thank you for fleshing out the biological component of the theory. That was a strong argument I had neglected. I have also heard that Jenna is in agreement with my theory so women are not universally opposed to it.
Brian, maybe we need to have a week debating the meaning of subjective. By your definition, if you own experience or perception comes into play at all then that means my theory is subjective. I don't think anything could be considered objective under that formula that involves the actions of human beings.
Let me also say this to all the guys who are trying to disprove my theory by one example from your whole lives. First, you are admitting my theory is correct in 97.8 percent of all cases then saying but I have one exception. That only proves the strength of my underlying argument.
Basically, all of you amount to astronauts telling me the theory of gravity doesn't apply to you because you went to space one time. The general trajectory of male-female relationships is to end up in romantic entanglements. If you have one example from your twenty-something year existence on this planet where that didn't happen, that doesn't disprove my theory. My theory is more accurate than the statement: "Men and women cannot fly." I've flown on airplanes more times than I have been friends with a woman. That doesn't mean I am going around telling people I can fly.
VZ, I hope you have more than anectodal evidence like one case you can come up with your past. As a fellow lawyer, you know that in rhetorical debate anectdotal evidence stands next to slippery slope arguments as the last bastion and hope of desperate men.
(BTW, transference has two aspects to its definition. The first applies to transference of people. The second applies to transference of emotions. Please do your assigned reading before coming to class.)
Finally, I will just see that I have taken great pains this week not to air anyone's dirty laundry or say anything that could lead to potential embarassment for the people who read this blog. However, I am quite certain that I could draw a web diagram of everyone on this blog and how they are connected by romantic entanglements. I'm still not going to do it.
Thanks for reading, folks. Good talk.
I feel like this has been a great week for my first post. Thanks for all your comments and insights. You really made me think about the theory in a new way.
Chad, I stand by your brilliance.
Laurie, thank you for fleshing out the biological component of the theory. That was a strong argument I had neglected. I have also heard that Jenna is in agreement with my theory so women are not universally opposed to it.
Brian, maybe we need to have a week debating the meaning of subjective. By your definition, if you own experience or perception comes into play at all then that means my theory is subjective. I don't think anything could be considered objective under that formula that involves the actions of human beings.
Let me also say this to all the guys who are trying to disprove my theory by one example from your whole lives. First, you are admitting my theory is correct in 97.8 percent of all cases then saying but I have one exception. That only proves the strength of my underlying argument.
Basically, all of you amount to astronauts telling me the theory of gravity doesn't apply to you because you went to space one time. The general trajectory of male-female relationships is to end up in romantic entanglements. If you have one example from your twenty-something year existence on this planet where that didn't happen, that doesn't disprove my theory. My theory is more accurate than the statement: "Men and women cannot fly." I've flown on airplanes more times than I have been friends with a woman. That doesn't mean I am going around telling people I can fly.
VZ, I hope you have more than anectodal evidence like one case you can come up with your past. As a fellow lawyer, you know that in rhetorical debate anectdotal evidence stands next to slippery slope arguments as the last bastion and hope of desperate men.
(BTW, transference has two aspects to its definition. The first applies to transference of people. The second applies to transference of emotions. Please do your assigned reading before coming to class.)
Finally, I will just see that I have taken great pains this week not to air anyone's dirty laundry or say anything that could lead to potential embarassment for the people who read this blog. However, I am quite certain that I could draw a web diagram of everyone on this blog and how they are connected by romantic entanglements. I'm still not going to do it.
Thanks for reading, folks. Good talk.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Additions, Subtractions, and Reformulations
Great comments. Fleshing out my theory in bloglike form has caused me to rethink its formulation a bit.
First, let utterly and absolutely reject this comment from Brian.
I brought up my personal upbringing for two reasons. One, I think every theory operates better when explained in its proper context. Two, that was going to be a really short blog post without some kind of introduction.
The theory applies universally although it may apply very differently to different people. I think Michael brings up some very good points about how his family life has shaped his relationships with women over time. To Amy, I will absolutely concede that the theory is definitely dominated by a decidedly male perspective because I am hypermasculine and possess little to no understanding of what you would call the "feminine mystique." In layman's terms, I have no idea what is going on in the heads of women as clearly evidenced by my life. Thanks. I wish more women would comment to let us know how they view the theory and its operation.
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
To Amy, don't bring Jesus into this. I just don't feel like fleshing out the theology of this theory. Breaking it down and testing its metaphysical significance seems to me to do nothing but ruin its simplistic elegance. (Although, I will say please see Jesus surrounding himself most closely in the gospels with twelve men. Also see the admonitions of Paul to men to treat younger women as "sisters" and not friends. Historical arguments, even from the basis of scripture, are inherently weak because men and women did not cultivate or develop friendships in that era because it was not seen as socially acceptable.)
To Billy's objection on the basis of his friendship with Kristen. This is a case of transference. You were friends with Kristen and then you transferred her over to Clayton. Billy was the transferor. Kristen was the transferee. Now, neither of you may have been friends for the sake of an eventual transfer but one happened none the less. This speaks to one of my underlying assumptions that prop up the overall theory. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. That is why all men-women friendships will inevitably find themselves in romantic entanglements.
That last part also speaks to the post-romantic feelings friendship. Again, as Chad so astutely pointed out, by this point my theory has already been proven. Can you be friends after something not working out romantically? Possibly, but in my experience, that friendship has always had at least the slightest tinge of weirdness because of the botched romantic attempt aspect. It is better to keep these things seperate.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
Finally, this theory does not currently apply to gays or lesbians. Although, the fact that you find people who are gay often find a disproportionate number of friends of the opposite sex may speak to the general role of gender identity when it comes to societal norms of establishing friendships. Also, the theory does not apply to "couples friends" because I have no earthly idea what that means.
Thanks for your comments. Please continue. This theory could definitely benefit from further development and particularly from a feminine perspective.
First, let utterly and absolutely reject this comment from Brian.
My first thought is that this is a very subjective theory, evidenced by your
need to clarify your upbringing before actually stating the theory.
I brought up my personal upbringing for two reasons. One, I think every theory operates better when explained in its proper context. Two, that was going to be a really short blog post without some kind of introduction.
The theory applies universally although it may apply very differently to different people. I think Michael brings up some very good points about how his family life has shaped his relationships with women over time. To Amy, I will absolutely concede that the theory is definitely dominated by a decidedly male perspective because I am hypermasculine and possess little to no understanding of what you would call the "feminine mystique." In layman's terms, I have no idea what is going on in the heads of women as clearly evidenced by my life. Thanks. I wish more women would comment to let us know how they view the theory and its operation.
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
To Amy, don't bring Jesus into this. I just don't feel like fleshing out the theology of this theory. Breaking it down and testing its metaphysical significance seems to me to do nothing but ruin its simplistic elegance. (Although, I will say please see Jesus surrounding himself most closely in the gospels with twelve men. Also see the admonitions of Paul to men to treat younger women as "sisters" and not friends. Historical arguments, even from the basis of scripture, are inherently weak because men and women did not cultivate or develop friendships in that era because it was not seen as socially acceptable.)
To Billy's objection on the basis of his friendship with Kristen. This is a case of transference. You were friends with Kristen and then you transferred her over to Clayton. Billy was the transferor. Kristen was the transferee. Now, neither of you may have been friends for the sake of an eventual transfer but one happened none the less. This speaks to one of my underlying assumptions that prop up the overall theory. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. That is why all men-women friendships will inevitably find themselves in romantic entanglements.
That last part also speaks to the post-romantic feelings friendship. Again, as Chad so astutely pointed out, by this point my theory has already been proven. Can you be friends after something not working out romantically? Possibly, but in my experience, that friendship has always had at least the slightest tinge of weirdness because of the botched romantic attempt aspect. It is better to keep these things seperate.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
Finally, this theory does not currently apply to gays or lesbians. Although, the fact that you find people who are gay often find a disproportionate number of friends of the opposite sex may speak to the general role of gender identity when it comes to societal norms of establishing friendships. Also, the theory does not apply to "couples friends" because I have no earthly idea what that means.
Thanks for your comments. Please continue. This theory could definitely benefit from further development and particularly from a feminine perspective.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Men and Women Cannot Be Friends
And after this post, none of the ones who read this blog will be mine.
So here's the deal. Last week's post did not exactly stimulate the conversation I think Clayton was looking for. Now we have to bring in the righty to clean up the mess that was left. (Note to theorists: Don't change your theory to make yourself more right. That just makes things boring.)
I'm going to be the resident bad guy on this blog. I'm going to have really unpopular theories and people are going to say I'm an idiot and get mad at me. That's OK. I mean I pretty much hawk unpopular opinions for a living so I'm used to it.
Alright, so men and women cannot be friends. Before I lay out the parameters of my argument, I should kind of explain why I think this in the first place. Where I grew up, boys and girls were not friends. Girls were for kissing. Guys were for playing baseball with. There really was no middle ground. There was a girl who grew up across the street from me. We were the same age, same grade, our families took trips together. We were never friends. It just wasn't done. I can't imagine how my friends would have made fun of me for playing house or dress up with girls. Never would have happened. I don't think we had any real interest in girls until we figured out we could date them. Then we went straight into trying to spit game. Once the game starts flowing, true friendships are not developed.
This was just how things worked. I never questioned it. Never knew it was normal to have friends who were girls. It wasn't until I got to college that I even thought of that kind of relationship as a possibility. Once I realized this was an option, I began to question myself. To think I may have somehow gained a warped perspective of male-female relationships, been scarred at an early age, and become a complete social misfit. (A quick survey of my relationship history may argue that this is indeed true.) I honestly thought I was weird. As if I had awoke to realize that all this time I had been sick or crazy or weird.
Then I realized that I was the only sane person in a world of insanity. I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Here's why.
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear. It is not an aquaintance that you had class with one time or someone who knew your roommate and came over to watch a basketball game at your apartment who then Facebooked you. I hate to break it to you but 95% of your Facebook "friends" are not your friends. They are acquaintances, but society tells us that it is mean to call people by that word. Just say this is "my friend." But doesn't that cheapen the basis for real friendships? The more and more people we try to be friends with, the less and less we can invest in each person.
So the first part of the theory deals with what actually constitutes a friend.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. The second part of the theory deals with what motivates us to develop this kind of relationship. Men and women are meant to procreate. It is how our species survives. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to a member of the opposite sex. It's just that the moment that attraction develops between two would-be friends, the friendly parts of the relationshp are totally obliterated. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. (Incidentally, this is why phrases like "bros before hoes" are completely ridiculous. Does anyone know one guy who puts bros before hoes? Not if that guy wants to successfully obtain and maintain a girlfriend.) There is no fighting this, folks. It is pretty much natural selection in action. We cannot fight our basic natural instincts.
So guys and girls either become "friends" in the first place because one of them is attracted to the other one. Or, in the alternative, they will not be able to develop a true friendship without one of them falling for the other.
There is also the corollary theory of transference. This is when you try to be "friends" with a member of the opposite sex because you are attracted to one of that person's friends. This is also not at true frienship because it is based on your ulterior motives. This is the case even if your motives are benign. For example, as was brought up at lunch last week, Kristen asked me if we were friends. I explained it to her like this. I am friends with Clayton. If Clayton and Kristen had not been dating as long as I have known him, I might not even have the privilege of knowing Kristen. That doesn't mean I don't like Kristen. I think she is one of the coolest people I know. It just means that our relationship is based on me being friends with Clayton. The theory of transference applies to that situation.
Friends purely for the sake of friendship. It doesn't happen, can't happen, won't happen between men and women. That's the basis of the theory.
To put it in classical logical terms:
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. (See also the theory of transference.)
Therefore,
Men and women cannot be friends.
That's it. That's the argument. Comment away. Disagree. Tell me you never liked me anyway. You won't likely talk me down but we can now begin the discussion.
So here's the deal. Last week's post did not exactly stimulate the conversation I think Clayton was looking for. Now we have to bring in the righty to clean up the mess that was left. (Note to theorists: Don't change your theory to make yourself more right. That just makes things boring.)
I'm going to be the resident bad guy on this blog. I'm going to have really unpopular theories and people are going to say I'm an idiot and get mad at me. That's OK. I mean I pretty much hawk unpopular opinions for a living so I'm used to it.
Alright, so men and women cannot be friends. Before I lay out the parameters of my argument, I should kind of explain why I think this in the first place. Where I grew up, boys and girls were not friends. Girls were for kissing. Guys were for playing baseball with. There really was no middle ground. There was a girl who grew up across the street from me. We were the same age, same grade, our families took trips together. We were never friends. It just wasn't done. I can't imagine how my friends would have made fun of me for playing house or dress up with girls. Never would have happened. I don't think we had any real interest in girls until we figured out we could date them. Then we went straight into trying to spit game. Once the game starts flowing, true friendships are not developed.
This was just how things worked. I never questioned it. Never knew it was normal to have friends who were girls. It wasn't until I got to college that I even thought of that kind of relationship as a possibility. Once I realized this was an option, I began to question myself. To think I may have somehow gained a warped perspective of male-female relationships, been scarred at an early age, and become a complete social misfit. (A quick survey of my relationship history may argue that this is indeed true.) I honestly thought I was weird. As if I had awoke to realize that all this time I had been sick or crazy or weird.
Then I realized that I was the only sane person in a world of insanity. I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Here's why.
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear. It is not an aquaintance that you had class with one time or someone who knew your roommate and came over to watch a basketball game at your apartment who then Facebooked you. I hate to break it to you but 95% of your Facebook "friends" are not your friends. They are acquaintances, but society tells us that it is mean to call people by that word. Just say this is "my friend." But doesn't that cheapen the basis for real friendships? The more and more people we try to be friends with, the less and less we can invest in each person.
So the first part of the theory deals with what actually constitutes a friend.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. The second part of the theory deals with what motivates us to develop this kind of relationship. Men and women are meant to procreate. It is how our species survives. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to a member of the opposite sex. It's just that the moment that attraction develops between two would-be friends, the friendly parts of the relationshp are totally obliterated. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. (Incidentally, this is why phrases like "bros before hoes" are completely ridiculous. Does anyone know one guy who puts bros before hoes? Not if that guy wants to successfully obtain and maintain a girlfriend.) There is no fighting this, folks. It is pretty much natural selection in action. We cannot fight our basic natural instincts.
So guys and girls either become "friends" in the first place because one of them is attracted to the other one. Or, in the alternative, they will not be able to develop a true friendship without one of them falling for the other.
There is also the corollary theory of transference. This is when you try to be "friends" with a member of the opposite sex because you are attracted to one of that person's friends. This is also not at true frienship because it is based on your ulterior motives. This is the case even if your motives are benign. For example, as was brought up at lunch last week, Kristen asked me if we were friends. I explained it to her like this. I am friends with Clayton. If Clayton and Kristen had not been dating as long as I have known him, I might not even have the privilege of knowing Kristen. That doesn't mean I don't like Kristen. I think she is one of the coolest people I know. It just means that our relationship is based on me being friends with Clayton. The theory of transference applies to that situation.
Friends purely for the sake of friendship. It doesn't happen, can't happen, won't happen between men and women. That's the basis of the theory.
To put it in classical logical terms:
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. (See also the theory of transference.)
Therefore,
Men and women cannot be friends.
That's it. That's the argument. Comment away. Disagree. Tell me you never liked me anyway. You won't likely talk me down but we can now begin the discussion.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Athletic Theory Update
Thank you for your comments so far. I have a couple responses and then I'll turn it back over to you to make more comments if you wish.
Brent makes a good point. Being the nationalist that I am I guess I just assumed you would think I was talking about American 18 yr olds. So yes, I should change my theory to mean the average "American" 18 year old male. In fact, I would bet that those of us in the south probably score higher on BMI tests than others with our deep fried foods and biscuits. (Have I mentioned I miss Bojangles?) Anyway, thank you for clarifying this.
Andrew also makesa a good comment and a very interesting news post. Pulling from Vz's comment, the article did not mention wisdom, and I do think I am more wise now than when I was 18. Like Eddie said, I am in no way a better basketball player than I was at age 22, or maybe even 18. But I am a bit wiser in the way I play. I know my limits and do not try as many stupid things. This counts some toward athleticism in Andrew's account. However, the speed of cognition item, which the article says decreases at age 27 is disconcerting. Perhaps this cancels out the wisdom aspect - which in the end still leaves us with the original theory in place.
I appreciate the comments. Keep them coming.
Brent makes a good point. Being the nationalist that I am I guess I just assumed you would think I was talking about American 18 yr olds. So yes, I should change my theory to mean the average "American" 18 year old male. In fact, I would bet that those of us in the south probably score higher on BMI tests than others with our deep fried foods and biscuits. (Have I mentioned I miss Bojangles?) Anyway, thank you for clarifying this.
Andrew also makesa a good comment and a very interesting news post. Pulling from Vz's comment, the article did not mention wisdom, and I do think I am more wise now than when I was 18. Like Eddie said, I am in no way a better basketball player than I was at age 22, or maybe even 18. But I am a bit wiser in the way I play. I know my limits and do not try as many stupid things. This counts some toward athleticism in Andrew's account. However, the speed of cognition item, which the article says decreases at age 27 is disconcerting. Perhaps this cancels out the wisdom aspect - which in the end still leaves us with the original theory in place.
I appreciate the comments. Keep them coming.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Athletic Theory
Clayton has asked me to discuss my most controversial theory, my previous statement that when I turn 30 I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old male. Like Vz’s theory, this is obviously a personal theory, but is one that I think sets up for a good conversation for all of us – who needless to say, aren’t getting any younger. When I first uttered this statement, it elicited much concern and criticism along with calls of insanity and complete ridiculousness. While this may seem at first like simply a brash and outlandish statement, I still stand by this claim and will attempt here in this post to convince you of its validity.
While Clayton among others seemed to expect me to talk about my specific athletic talents, or use arguments like “I can play 5 games of basketball and not be sore the next day,” I am going to take a more rational and empirical approach to my argument. I will offer specific and scientific evidence as to why the athletic abilities of the average 18 year old and then explain why I believe I am more athletic than this. In conclusion I will offer a couple quantitative examples of specific athletic skills, only to back up my argument.
I believe that my argument for my theory can actually be stated more precisely by its inverse: the average 18 year old is less athletic than me. The key to my argument is the term “average.” The reason I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old male when I am 30 is because the average 18 year old is not very athletic. Here is my evidence. 1) According to the American Obesity Association, in a 1999 survey, 33% of adolescent boys (ages 12-19) are overweight. This means that they have over a 25 Body Mass Index (BMI). This figure rose 250% since 1975, an average of a 10% increase each year. While reports indicate that adolescent obesity continues to accelerate, we can safely assume that this trend, in the very least, continues. So if we take this trend out 11 more years to the year 2010 when I will be 30, we can predict that it has increased 110% from its 1999 rate, to a figure of 68% of adolescent males will be overweight in 2010. Over 2/3 of 12-19 year olds will be overweight. If you say, this figure includes teenagers as well, the study also shows that in 2000 66% of adults were obese, so clearly, obesity rises as the age increases. So theoretically, we could predict that over 68% of 18 year olds are overweight. 2) If we add to this fact a CRC Health Group study that shows that only 50% of 12-21 year olds engage in regular physical activity,(indicating that less than 50% play sports regularly) we can assume that the average 18 year old ranks low on athleticism. To summarize, by 2010, over 68% of 18 year old males will be overweight (meaning, have higher than a 25 BMI). My BMI is 22.1. It has stayed that way for the past 5 years so we can assume that it will not change dramatically in a year and a half. So if we compare those stats, and take into account that only half of 18 year olds engage in regular physical activity, we can pretty safely assume that I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old.
One further point. 3) According to the SAT research group, male SAT scores rose 20 pts from 200-2008. Using this trend, we can presume that the difference between 1999 (the year I took the SAT) and 2010, the average male SAT score will have risen 27 pts. The number of male students who take the SAT has increased by 2% each year during that period, meaning that 25% more male students are attempting to go to college than when I was 18. All this evidence suggests that as college selectivity increases, and students attempt to become more competitive in college applications, they must take more AP courses and spend more time doing school work now than 15 years ago. This evidence simply adds to my argument that 18 year olds would participate less in physical activity and therefore, have a low athleticism. I believe that if you take my argument about BMI and obesity, my evidence about physical activity, and my argument about the requirements of scholasticism and its negative effects on athleticism, I believe it is logical and likely that when I am 30 I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old in 2010. In fact, this argument suggests that likely, most of you will be more athletic than the average 18 year old as well.
If this empirical argument has not convinced you, here are two quantitative addendums to my argument. These deal with specific athletic skills and are in no way meant to be exhaustive, or to serve as my argument, only to represent a few examples that add to my argument. 1) According to a University of Texas study, the average vertical jump of 18 year old males is 19.5 inches. My vertical at age 29 is around 27 inches, already 7 inches over the average 18 year old. 2) According to BodyBuilding.com, the average 18 year old make can bench press (1 rep max) 135 lbs. While I am not proud of my max bench press, at this point it is likely no lower than 170-180 lbs. (just last spring I could bench 165 lbs 4 reps). These two examples are only meant to add to my theory, while my primary argument lies in the empirical evidence listed above.
In conclusion, I maintain my theory that the AVERAGE 18 year old is less athletic than I will be at age 30 in 2010. Not only in two athletic skills that are quantifiable and measureable (vertical jump and bench press), are my skills superior to the average 18 year old, but if current trends continue, as most medical professionals and researchers claim, half of all 18 year old do not participate in regular athletic activity (whereas I do), and over 2/3 of average 18 year old males rank at least 3 points higher than me on BMI and are classified therefore as overweight and obese. While obesity does not necessarily entail less athleticism, out of 2/3 of 18 year old who are overweight, it is reasonable to say that ½ of those males would not be athletic as a 30 year old with a 22 BMI who participates in physical activity and has at least a few higher measureable athletic skills. While I can predict a few contentions to my argument (sports are a factor in college applications, some overweight people are still athletic, the BMI is not a good indicator of athleticism) I believe the body of my evidence is more than enough to prove my theory.
While Clayton among others seemed to expect me to talk about my specific athletic talents, or use arguments like “I can play 5 games of basketball and not be sore the next day,” I am going to take a more rational and empirical approach to my argument. I will offer specific and scientific evidence as to why the athletic abilities of the average 18 year old and then explain why I believe I am more athletic than this. In conclusion I will offer a couple quantitative examples of specific athletic skills, only to back up my argument.
I believe that my argument for my theory can actually be stated more precisely by its inverse: the average 18 year old is less athletic than me. The key to my argument is the term “average.” The reason I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old male when I am 30 is because the average 18 year old is not very athletic. Here is my evidence. 1) According to the American Obesity Association, in a 1999 survey, 33% of adolescent boys (ages 12-19) are overweight. This means that they have over a 25 Body Mass Index (BMI). This figure rose 250% since 1975, an average of a 10% increase each year. While reports indicate that adolescent obesity continues to accelerate, we can safely assume that this trend, in the very least, continues. So if we take this trend out 11 more years to the year 2010 when I will be 30, we can predict that it has increased 110% from its 1999 rate, to a figure of 68% of adolescent males will be overweight in 2010. Over 2/3 of 12-19 year olds will be overweight. If you say, this figure includes teenagers as well, the study also shows that in 2000 66% of adults were obese, so clearly, obesity rises as the age increases. So theoretically, we could predict that over 68% of 18 year olds are overweight. 2) If we add to this fact a CRC Health Group study that shows that only 50% of 12-21 year olds engage in regular physical activity,(indicating that less than 50% play sports regularly) we can assume that the average 18 year old ranks low on athleticism. To summarize, by 2010, over 68% of 18 year old males will be overweight (meaning, have higher than a 25 BMI). My BMI is 22.1. It has stayed that way for the past 5 years so we can assume that it will not change dramatically in a year and a half. So if we compare those stats, and take into account that only half of 18 year olds engage in regular physical activity, we can pretty safely assume that I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old.
One further point. 3) According to the SAT research group, male SAT scores rose 20 pts from 200-2008. Using this trend, we can presume that the difference between 1999 (the year I took the SAT) and 2010, the average male SAT score will have risen 27 pts. The number of male students who take the SAT has increased by 2% each year during that period, meaning that 25% more male students are attempting to go to college than when I was 18. All this evidence suggests that as college selectivity increases, and students attempt to become more competitive in college applications, they must take more AP courses and spend more time doing school work now than 15 years ago. This evidence simply adds to my argument that 18 year olds would participate less in physical activity and therefore, have a low athleticism. I believe that if you take my argument about BMI and obesity, my evidence about physical activity, and my argument about the requirements of scholasticism and its negative effects on athleticism, I believe it is logical and likely that when I am 30 I will be more athletic than the average 18 year old in 2010. In fact, this argument suggests that likely, most of you will be more athletic than the average 18 year old as well.
If this empirical argument has not convinced you, here are two quantitative addendums to my argument. These deal with specific athletic skills and are in no way meant to be exhaustive, or to serve as my argument, only to represent a few examples that add to my argument. 1) According to a University of Texas study, the average vertical jump of 18 year old males is 19.5 inches. My vertical at age 29 is around 27 inches, already 7 inches over the average 18 year old. 2) According to BodyBuilding.com, the average 18 year old make can bench press (1 rep max) 135 lbs. While I am not proud of my max bench press, at this point it is likely no lower than 170-180 lbs. (just last spring I could bench 165 lbs 4 reps). These two examples are only meant to add to my theory, while my primary argument lies in the empirical evidence listed above.
In conclusion, I maintain my theory that the AVERAGE 18 year old is less athletic than I will be at age 30 in 2010. Not only in two athletic skills that are quantifiable and measureable (vertical jump and bench press), are my skills superior to the average 18 year old, but if current trends continue, as most medical professionals and researchers claim, half of all 18 year old do not participate in regular athletic activity (whereas I do), and over 2/3 of average 18 year old males rank at least 3 points higher than me on BMI and are classified therefore as overweight and obese. While obesity does not necessarily entail less athleticism, out of 2/3 of 18 year old who are overweight, it is reasonable to say that ½ of those males would not be athletic as a 30 year old with a 22 BMI who participates in physical activity and has at least a few higher measureable athletic skills. While I can predict a few contentions to my argument (sports are a factor in college applications, some overweight people are still athletic, the BMI is not a good indicator of athleticism) I believe the body of my evidence is more than enough to prove my theory.
The Third Date
When we were talking the other night Lindsay said her only problem with the theory was: "I want to fall in love mutually, I don't want to fall in love with someone who doesn't exist."
I couldn't agree more, but if you fall in love with someone who committed to listening to and acting in kindness toward you for the entirety of your relationship, then you have fallen in love with someone who does exist. A person who is willing to change, adapt and put you first. And that is the best kind of person to fall in love with.
Stay tuned for Kris' theory of how even though he is already 30, he is still more athletic than the average 18 year-old.
I couldn't agree more, but if you fall in love with someone who committed to listening to and acting in kindness toward you for the entirety of your relationship, then you have fallen in love with someone who does exist. A person who is willing to change, adapt and put you first. And that is the best kind of person to fall in love with.
Stay tuned for Kris' theory of how even though he is already 30, he is still more athletic than the average 18 year-old.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Second Date
First, I am pleased but somewhat surprised at the general consensus surrounding my original premise: if a guy and girl are compatible enough to enjoy three dates, then if the guy is willing to listen to the girl and act on what he learns, the girl will fall in love with him.
Second, I am disappointed that Lindsay was the only girl who felt like weighing in on this. I would really be nice to hear some insights from the other side of the aisle.
Most of the disagreement, concern appears to be one of three things:
1) Sample size - I can't do better than 100%, and there are no plans to increase the sample size just to prove something I already believe.
2) The theory can be used for purposes that are deemed by the commentor as "improper." Ok, I agree. Probably something like 80% of what is done in relationships is done for an improper motive or to reach an improper end. I certainly don't think that is good, but it's a fact.
3) Will the love last? Great question, critque. I would suggest, although I have no data, that the chance of the love dying is directly related to the amount of improper motives that affect the guy's decision to follow the theory.
Having then established that I can make any girl who will go on three dates with me fall in love me. I will further address some of comments:
I think my small sample indicates that I personally have never used this ability in a situation where I did not deeply care for the person. To summarize the good parts of Clayton's comments: Listening and acting is not necessarily a means to end (as suggested in B-Ho's comment and as intentionally hinted at in my initial post) it can also be a end in itself. That is, you can listen to your significant other and act on what you learn because you love him/her, not in order to get him/her to love you.
In response to B-Ho's comment, I don't think your life would be become a miserable hen-pecked husband simply because you listened to your wife and acted. Especially not if she was doing the same thing. I am not sure anything in the original post suggested that you can't put the theory into action and also be your own person. In fact, I think Lindsay's comments illustrate that I was able to both listen and act and also be my own person. And no I don't think a relationship should be "give and take." I believe it should be "give and give." If both people are giving, then there is no need for taking.
And if we want to be idealistic, I would say that you can really only control yourself, so if the other person isn't giving there isn't much you can do but decide whether you are going to keep giving anyway or whether you are going to get fed up and start taking. Idealistically, I think you should always keep giving.
Brian Turney - no comment.
Clayton raises an interesting discussion. I would agree that at some point, people decide they have achieved their "goal" and stop trying or stop trying as hard. However, Clayton suggests this happens because someone falls out of love. I think people fall out of love (if that is even a good way to describe it) because they stop trying.
Clayton futher suggests that the theory is not the "right" way to go about making someone fall in love. Well Clayton, what is the right way? Hypothetically, let's say you just met a girl, we'll call her Kristen, at orientation and you think you might like her. Clearly, she doesn't "love" you at this point. And then let's say you start hanging out with her and realize you might like her. Then you realize you might love her. Let's say you do love her, but she doesn't love you yet (perfectly feasible unless you believe both people in a relationship automatically feel the same way at the same time). I would say you definitely want her to "fall in love with you." And you are going to act on this desire and try to make her fall in love with you. So do you have a better way to achieve this goal? What is the right way? I guess I think listening to her and trying to do things that will make her happy and trying not to do things that would hurt her, is the "right" way to go about making her fall in love with you.
I would like to thank Kris for being one of the few with a kind comment, and take this moment to point out that Lindsay (who experienced it) and Kris (who had the most direct view of it in action) are the two most complimentary commentors.
I would place the following modifiers on the theory:
1) There are certain parts of yourself that you shouldn't change. There are certain parts of yourself that you probably won't be able to change at least for the long-term, and by changing them in the short-term you are being disingenuous. But there are so many things that you can change without losing your indentity. (By the way I am not talking about things that you are simply unwilling to change, I am mostly talking about things that would be immorral, unhealthy, disingenuous to change.) As my grandma used to say "I can't help it, God made me this way." And as my mom used to say to us later "Actually, God made you a human being with a soul who is capable of change and growth."
2) If you don't plan on employing the listen and act strategy for the entirety of your relationship, you are just setting yourself and your significant other up for pain and sorrow. On a sidenote soapbox, if your goals are getting the girl to fall in love or getting her to marry you, your goals are way to low. I believe the proper goal, is a constant deepening of the relationship and the love for a period not shorter than the entirety of the relationship. If you achieve that goal, then quit using the listen and act strategy.
With those modifiers, I don't have a problem if you use the theory in order to make someone fall in love with you.
If you love someone, or think you might, and desire that they feel the same about you, and if you are willing to listen to them and act on their desires for the entirety of the relationship, I challenge to find a kinder, better, more likely to succeed, or even more Biblical way to nurture those feelings than to listen to that person's needs and desires and do whatever you can to meet them.
Second, I am disappointed that Lindsay was the only girl who felt like weighing in on this. I would really be nice to hear some insights from the other side of the aisle.
Most of the disagreement, concern appears to be one of three things:
1) Sample size - I can't do better than 100%, and there are no plans to increase the sample size just to prove something I already believe.
2) The theory can be used for purposes that are deemed by the commentor as "improper." Ok, I agree. Probably something like 80% of what is done in relationships is done for an improper motive or to reach an improper end. I certainly don't think that is good, but it's a fact.
3) Will the love last? Great question, critque. I would suggest, although I have no data, that the chance of the love dying is directly related to the amount of improper motives that affect the guy's decision to follow the theory.
Having then established that I can make any girl who will go on three dates with me fall in love me. I will further address some of comments:
I think my small sample indicates that I personally have never used this ability in a situation where I did not deeply care for the person. To summarize the good parts of Clayton's comments: Listening and acting is not necessarily a means to end (as suggested in B-Ho's comment and as intentionally hinted at in my initial post) it can also be a end in itself. That is, you can listen to your significant other and act on what you learn because you love him/her, not in order to get him/her to love you.
In response to B-Ho's comment, I don't think your life would be become a miserable hen-pecked husband simply because you listened to your wife and acted. Especially not if she was doing the same thing. I am not sure anything in the original post suggested that you can't put the theory into action and also be your own person. In fact, I think Lindsay's comments illustrate that I was able to both listen and act and also be my own person. And no I don't think a relationship should be "give and take." I believe it should be "give and give." If both people are giving, then there is no need for taking.
And if we want to be idealistic, I would say that you can really only control yourself, so if the other person isn't giving there isn't much you can do but decide whether you are going to keep giving anyway or whether you are going to get fed up and start taking. Idealistically, I think you should always keep giving.
Brian Turney - no comment.
Clayton raises an interesting discussion. I would agree that at some point, people decide they have achieved their "goal" and stop trying or stop trying as hard. However, Clayton suggests this happens because someone falls out of love. I think people fall out of love (if that is even a good way to describe it) because they stop trying.
Clayton futher suggests that the theory is not the "right" way to go about making someone fall in love. Well Clayton, what is the right way? Hypothetically, let's say you just met a girl, we'll call her Kristen, at orientation and you think you might like her. Clearly, she doesn't "love" you at this point. And then let's say you start hanging out with her and realize you might like her. Then you realize you might love her. Let's say you do love her, but she doesn't love you yet (perfectly feasible unless you believe both people in a relationship automatically feel the same way at the same time). I would say you definitely want her to "fall in love with you." And you are going to act on this desire and try to make her fall in love with you. So do you have a better way to achieve this goal? What is the right way? I guess I think listening to her and trying to do things that will make her happy and trying not to do things that would hurt her, is the "right" way to go about making her fall in love with you.
I would like to thank Kris for being one of the few with a kind comment, and take this moment to point out that Lindsay (who experienced it) and Kris (who had the most direct view of it in action) are the two most complimentary commentors.
I would place the following modifiers on the theory:
1) There are certain parts of yourself that you shouldn't change. There are certain parts of yourself that you probably won't be able to change at least for the long-term, and by changing them in the short-term you are being disingenuous. But there are so many things that you can change without losing your indentity. (By the way I am not talking about things that you are simply unwilling to change, I am mostly talking about things that would be immorral, unhealthy, disingenuous to change.) As my grandma used to say "I can't help it, God made me this way." And as my mom used to say to us later "Actually, God made you a human being with a soul who is capable of change and growth."
2) If you don't plan on employing the listen and act strategy for the entirety of your relationship, you are just setting yourself and your significant other up for pain and sorrow. On a sidenote soapbox, if your goals are getting the girl to fall in love or getting her to marry you, your goals are way to low. I believe the proper goal, is a constant deepening of the relationship and the love for a period not shorter than the entirety of the relationship. If you achieve that goal, then quit using the listen and act strategy.
With those modifiers, I don't have a problem if you use the theory in order to make someone fall in love with you.
If you love someone, or think you might, and desire that they feel the same about you, and if you are willing to listen to them and act on their desires for the entirety of the relationship, I challenge to find a kinder, better, more likely to succeed, or even more Biblical way to nurture those feelings than to listen to that person's needs and desires and do whatever you can to meet them.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Love Theory
GO TARHEELS!!!
Any girl, who goes on three dates with me, will fall in love with me. This is not a theory, like that candy bar craziness of last week. It’s an uncontroverted fact.
Let’s get a couple of things straight. First, it is three dates not two as has recently been erroneously reported by some wanna-be-theoryoricicists. Second, I did not say the girl would be in love with me at the end of the third date, I just said she will fall in love with me.
What causes this phenomenon? There are many theories about that, my dapper good looks, my contagious personality, my wit, my charisma, my really, really large . . . heart.
Where to start? Ok as of 7:39 on March 8, 2009, there are approximately 6,765,152,276 people in the world. But I don’t travel much, and I don’t speak a foreign language, so let’s limit this to the United States. The US has about 5 million more girls than guys and about 155,000,000 girls in all. Even if you limit it 18 to 40 year olds, that’s a lot of girls.
Right off the bat, some, let’s say 50, wouldn’t even go on a first date with me. There either snobs, married, or not very smart.
Then, there are some who wouldn’t go on a second date with me. Maybe my fly was open all night, or I got lettuce stuck in my teeth. Usually they’re the girls who can’t seem to allow themselves to be happy, or they’re snobs, or not very smart.
Of course, there are also some I wouldn’t go on a second date with.
All kidding aside, there are a lot of people out there you just aren’t going to mesh with. That’s ok. I am always interested when people give up trying b/c the first few significant others don’t work out. I mean there are probably 125 million potential significant others in the US alone that you wouldn’t get to a second date with, but your quiting because 5 or 10 didn’t work out.
Now, if we get to the second date, it means there’s nothing really standing in the way of friendship, but it doesn’t mean love. We might run out of things to talk about right then, or maybe after the initial “I’m going on a date” thrill wore off, we realize there isn’t real attraction and there isn’t another date.
But if it gets to the third date, she will fall in love.
Here’s the truth of it guys and girls. It’s not really that hard to figure out how to make a girl fall in love with you. All you have to do is listen to her. Girls are more than willing to share what it is they are looking for in a guy. They’ll tell you something sweet that happened to their roommate. They’ll talk about the guy who lives down the hall that never treats his girlfriend right. And if she’s already been on two dates with me, I’ve had plenty of time to listen.
If she thinks the guy should always open the door, you do it. If she thinks all guys who wear red shirts are jerks, you first make sure she isn’t crazy, then you give away your red shirts and start wearing blue. If she mentions that no guy has ever given her jewelry, you figure out a time to get her some.
The point is this: you are trying to get the girl to fall in love with you. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s stupid, your friends think it’s stupid, or it is in fact undeniably stupid. If she wants you to do it, you do it.
The theory is as simple of this, if I am compatible enough with a girl that we go on three dates, that is all the time I need for her to tell me what she is looking for in a guy. Then I become that guy. I listen and I act. And I listen and I act for as long as it takes for her to fall in love with me.
It really is that simple, but it’s not easy. It’s a lot of work, and I have a theory as to why most guys can’t pull it off. They either refuse to listen or they’re too lazy to act, or 99% of the time, they’re both.
Side Note: As the elder statesman of the bloggers (except Kris who is so old that is only questionably sane) I have decided to end of my blogs with a word of wisdom. Today’s is,
“If it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, then don’t eat it, even if it isn’t crap.”
Any girl, who goes on three dates with me, will fall in love with me. This is not a theory, like that candy bar craziness of last week. It’s an uncontroverted fact.
Let’s get a couple of things straight. First, it is three dates not two as has recently been erroneously reported by some wanna-be-theoryoricicists. Second, I did not say the girl would be in love with me at the end of the third date, I just said she will fall in love with me.
What causes this phenomenon? There are many theories about that, my dapper good looks, my contagious personality, my wit, my charisma, my really, really large . . . heart.
Where to start? Ok as of 7:39 on March 8, 2009, there are approximately 6,765,152,276 people in the world. But I don’t travel much, and I don’t speak a foreign language, so let’s limit this to the United States. The US has about 5 million more girls than guys and about 155,000,000 girls in all. Even if you limit it 18 to 40 year olds, that’s a lot of girls.
Right off the bat, some, let’s say 50, wouldn’t even go on a first date with me. There either snobs, married, or not very smart.
Then, there are some who wouldn’t go on a second date with me. Maybe my fly was open all night, or I got lettuce stuck in my teeth. Usually they’re the girls who can’t seem to allow themselves to be happy, or they’re snobs, or not very smart.
Of course, there are also some I wouldn’t go on a second date with.
All kidding aside, there are a lot of people out there you just aren’t going to mesh with. That’s ok. I am always interested when people give up trying b/c the first few significant others don’t work out. I mean there are probably 125 million potential significant others in the US alone that you wouldn’t get to a second date with, but your quiting because 5 or 10 didn’t work out.
Now, if we get to the second date, it means there’s nothing really standing in the way of friendship, but it doesn’t mean love. We might run out of things to talk about right then, or maybe after the initial “I’m going on a date” thrill wore off, we realize there isn’t real attraction and there isn’t another date.
But if it gets to the third date, she will fall in love.
Here’s the truth of it guys and girls. It’s not really that hard to figure out how to make a girl fall in love with you. All you have to do is listen to her. Girls are more than willing to share what it is they are looking for in a guy. They’ll tell you something sweet that happened to their roommate. They’ll talk about the guy who lives down the hall that never treats his girlfriend right. And if she’s already been on two dates with me, I’ve had plenty of time to listen.
If she thinks the guy should always open the door, you do it. If she thinks all guys who wear red shirts are jerks, you first make sure she isn’t crazy, then you give away your red shirts and start wearing blue. If she mentions that no guy has ever given her jewelry, you figure out a time to get her some.
The point is this: you are trying to get the girl to fall in love with you. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s stupid, your friends think it’s stupid, or it is in fact undeniably stupid. If she wants you to do it, you do it.
The theory is as simple of this, if I am compatible enough with a girl that we go on three dates, that is all the time I need for her to tell me what she is looking for in a guy. Then I become that guy. I listen and I act. And I listen and I act for as long as it takes for her to fall in love with me.
It really is that simple, but it’s not easy. It’s a lot of work, and I have a theory as to why most guys can’t pull it off. They either refuse to listen or they’re too lazy to act, or 99% of the time, they’re both.
Side Note: As the elder statesman of the bloggers (except Kris who is so old that is only questionably sane) I have decided to end of my blogs with a word of wisdom. Today’s is,
“If it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, then don’t eat it, even if it isn’t crap.”
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Closing Remarks: Twix
There were many suggestions made in application of the Twix Theory. The following items were mentioned: Home Improvement, bowling, VW Jetta, Jude Law, mac and cheese, potato salad, PB&J, sliced ham or turkey, oatmeal cream pies, red apples, cheerios, apple juice, vanilla ice cream, Doritos and mention of a mayonnaise intolerance which I’m not sure applies or exist.
Many of these suggestions were appropriately followed by dissents and some received affirmation of Twix status. I will outline a few of the notables here with some of my thoughts included. Potato salad earned the highest quantity of dissents with 3. The most significant dissents involved apple juice and Doritos. Eddie and Amy had a serious discussion about Doritos that seemed to almost come to tears and Laurie dissented on apple juice. Although she does not mention it at length here she does in fact love apple juice and drink it daily! To support my claim I will loosely quote her husband Andrew in a conversation I had with him previously. “If she (Laurie) had to choose between me and apple juice I would be worried about her decision.” Point being, she loves it; not that she doesn’t also love Andrew. The most significant evidence and affirmation for a suggestion involved mac and cheese. Eddie did provide numbered reasons/evidence for mac and cheese being “Twix” and Amy and Birdman agreed.
Looking at this, it is my opinion that mac and cheese, Home Improvement, and bowling are categorically Twix for the majority of the general population. Certainly there are more out there but these are the ones specifically discussed here. I appreciate the input, and feel free to disagree with my final comments on these three selections.
In the interest of completeness please review the revision in regard to Twix People posted in “Twix ReMix”.
“So for application to people maybe the Twix Theory is regional. I think that we have established that in NC, Twix is not anyone’s favorite candy bar (unless you prove me wrong). But maybe the great people over in LA think Twix is the best thing since Chad Hines. This is an explanation that would serve to clear up bad feelings about one person being a Twix to all people. To be clear, each region that feels differently about Twix represents a different group of friends that may see you as fitting in their life as a NC Twix (non-favorite, but good) or a LA Twix (baller rockstar candybar). So you might be a NC Twix to me but someone else might think you are the Twix of the west coast.”
What I do want to discuss is a final addendum of sorts that I feel makes the Twix Theory more understood and accepted. It addresses the comment below.
“People and things aren't categorically Twix -- for some people they are and for some they are favorites.” -Laurie Beck Hogan
Addendum: Previous insinuation and terminology that suggested that the Twix Theory was an absolute should be dismissed and replaced with the following thoughts. The Twix Theory is claiming that for most people in the general population an item is acceptable and good but not their favorite. The key concept here is that the majority of people feel this way. There of course will be outliers and exceptions to the rule. For example, clearly at least one person has an undying obsession and love for Home Improvement. Although these people exist it can still be true that greater than 90% of people don’t have these kinds of fanatical feelings about the show but would still happily watch an episode on TV if the timing was right. With this clarification I would suggest that categorizing an item as a Twix would take extensive research and polling to confirm. Although this extensive work would be needed to define an item as so, it is still fun to think critically and debate how the population perceives actors, food, and so much more.
I intend to continue to bring back food theories as a regular theme on Discourse and Jargon. Please continue to post. I have enjoyed this week. Email me if you have theories running around in your brain and we will get you scheduled in. Brian Hollingsworth is already scheduled for an April date, when will yours be?
Please help me welcome our next theorist, John Veazey. His work will be released Sunday, March 8.
Many of these suggestions were appropriately followed by dissents and some received affirmation of Twix status. I will outline a few of the notables here with some of my thoughts included. Potato salad earned the highest quantity of dissents with 3. The most significant dissents involved apple juice and Doritos. Eddie and Amy had a serious discussion about Doritos that seemed to almost come to tears and Laurie dissented on apple juice. Although she does not mention it at length here she does in fact love apple juice and drink it daily! To support my claim I will loosely quote her husband Andrew in a conversation I had with him previously. “If she (Laurie) had to choose between me and apple juice I would be worried about her decision.” Point being, she loves it; not that she doesn’t also love Andrew. The most significant evidence and affirmation for a suggestion involved mac and cheese. Eddie did provide numbered reasons/evidence for mac and cheese being “Twix” and Amy and Birdman agreed.
Looking at this, it is my opinion that mac and cheese, Home Improvement, and bowling are categorically Twix for the majority of the general population. Certainly there are more out there but these are the ones specifically discussed here. I appreciate the input, and feel free to disagree with my final comments on these three selections.
In the interest of completeness please review the revision in regard to Twix People posted in “Twix ReMix”.
“So for application to people maybe the Twix Theory is regional. I think that we have established that in NC, Twix is not anyone’s favorite candy bar (unless you prove me wrong). But maybe the great people over in LA think Twix is the best thing since Chad Hines. This is an explanation that would serve to clear up bad feelings about one person being a Twix to all people. To be clear, each region that feels differently about Twix represents a different group of friends that may see you as fitting in their life as a NC Twix (non-favorite, but good) or a LA Twix (baller rockstar candybar). So you might be a NC Twix to me but someone else might think you are the Twix of the west coast.”
What I do want to discuss is a final addendum of sorts that I feel makes the Twix Theory more understood and accepted. It addresses the comment below.
“People and things aren't categorically Twix -- for some people they are and for some they are favorites.” -Laurie Beck Hogan
Addendum: Previous insinuation and terminology that suggested that the Twix Theory was an absolute should be dismissed and replaced with the following thoughts. The Twix Theory is claiming that for most people in the general population an item is acceptable and good but not their favorite. The key concept here is that the majority of people feel this way. There of course will be outliers and exceptions to the rule. For example, clearly at least one person has an undying obsession and love for Home Improvement. Although these people exist it can still be true that greater than 90% of people don’t have these kinds of fanatical feelings about the show but would still happily watch an episode on TV if the timing was right. With this clarification I would suggest that categorizing an item as a Twix would take extensive research and polling to confirm. Although this extensive work would be needed to define an item as so, it is still fun to think critically and debate how the population perceives actors, food, and so much more.
I intend to continue to bring back food theories as a regular theme on Discourse and Jargon. Please continue to post. I have enjoyed this week. Email me if you have theories running around in your brain and we will get you scheduled in. Brian Hollingsworth is already scheduled for an April date, when will yours be?
Please help me welcome our next theorist, John Veazey. His work will be released Sunday, March 8.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Twix ReMix
I appreciate all the responses; keep them coming! Collaboration is key to the process of providing solid theories that work. There won't always be a mid-week post, but if necessary they will appear. I think that enough questions have been raised that it will best facilitate discussion if I post a revision.
First off, thanks to Skyler for the “that’s what she said.” That always makes things better when it is put in the right place at the right time. That’s also what she said.
Amy, I appreciate your commenting on the unhealthiness of Twix but I can’t find anything that applies here. Good thoughts though. Things like this should always be brought up and discussed.
I do want to take the rest of this post to discuss the issue with Twix people. As I was writing up the theory and discussing it with Kristen we did note that it would be sad if there were actually Twix people (see first Twix post and point 3 at the bottom). I think that both Laurie and Brian have given good input to help the theory be more accurate and appropriate for understanding people and relationships.
“You will share natural chemistry with some people and will simply enjoy the company of others. That's simple personality. I don't think we can label specific people as "Twix people" categorically. To some, you might be a Twix person; to others, you're absolutely indispensable.” -Laurie Beck Hogan
“…labeling someone a Twix is subjective. They may be a Twix to you, but not to someone else.” -Brian Turney
For some groups of people it seems you can be a Twix, but you probably aren’t a Twix to everyone. Kristen mentioned yesterday that she thinks she is a Twix, when we all know that she is my heath-bar-oreo-reeses-pieces-milkshake! So for application to people maybe the Twix Theory is regional. I think that we have established that in NC, Twix is not anyone’s favorite candy bar (unless you prove me wrong). But maybe the great people over in LA think Twix is the best thing since Chad Hines. This is an explanation that would serve to clear up bad feelings about one person being a Twix to all people. To be clear, each region that feels differently about Twix represents a different group of friends that may see you as fitting in their life as a NC Twix (non-favorite, but good) or a LA Twix (baller rockstar candybar). So you might be a NC Twix to me but someone else might think you are the Twix of the west coast.
So that was my attempt to reconcile the Twix person issue. I greatly appreciate the input and hope that there is more to come. I will continue to revise and repost as the week goes on. If there is another influx of comments I will post another mid-week response to help the discussion move along.
I’ll give another example to try to explore the diversity that Brent mentions and to apply the Twix Theory in another realm other than people. Home Improvement is a Twix TV show. Everyone likes it, and will watch an episode here and there but does anyone you know own the dvd series? Do you DVR it? I think this is another example of how the Twix theory can be used. Please help me come up with other applications and Brent could you provide us with one of better examples that have been mentioned in the past?
Please continue to respond through comments. Help me think of other foods that might fit better. For us here in NC the Twix applies, but I would love to know what the “Twix” cheese is in Wisconsin?
Final Comments
1. Does any one absolutely love Twix as their favorite?
a. Peanut butter twix is a different candy bar and does not apply to the Twix Theory.
2. Original Twix debuted in the US in 1979 and the peanut butter version shortly followed in 1983. However, it was only available until 1997; only to make a permanent return in 2000.
First off, thanks to Skyler for the “that’s what she said.” That always makes things better when it is put in the right place at the right time. That’s also what she said.
Amy, I appreciate your commenting on the unhealthiness of Twix but I can’t find anything that applies here. Good thoughts though. Things like this should always be brought up and discussed.
I do want to take the rest of this post to discuss the issue with Twix people. As I was writing up the theory and discussing it with Kristen we did note that it would be sad if there were actually Twix people (see first Twix post and point 3 at the bottom). I think that both Laurie and Brian have given good input to help the theory be more accurate and appropriate for understanding people and relationships.
“You will share natural chemistry with some people and will simply enjoy the company of others. That's simple personality. I don't think we can label specific people as "Twix people" categorically. To some, you might be a Twix person; to others, you're absolutely indispensable.” -Laurie Beck Hogan
“…labeling someone a Twix is subjective. They may be a Twix to you, but not to someone else.” -Brian Turney
For some groups of people it seems you can be a Twix, but you probably aren’t a Twix to everyone. Kristen mentioned yesterday that she thinks she is a Twix, when we all know that she is my heath-bar-oreo-reeses-pieces-milkshake! So for application to people maybe the Twix Theory is regional. I think that we have established that in NC, Twix is not anyone’s favorite candy bar (unless you prove me wrong). But maybe the great people over in LA think Twix is the best thing since Chad Hines. This is an explanation that would serve to clear up bad feelings about one person being a Twix to all people. To be clear, each region that feels differently about Twix represents a different group of friends that may see you as fitting in their life as a NC Twix (non-favorite, but good) or a LA Twix (baller rockstar candybar). So you might be a NC Twix to me but someone else might think you are the Twix of the west coast.
So that was my attempt to reconcile the Twix person issue. I greatly appreciate the input and hope that there is more to come. I will continue to revise and repost as the week goes on. If there is another influx of comments I will post another mid-week response to help the discussion move along.
I’ll give another example to try to explore the diversity that Brent mentions and to apply the Twix Theory in another realm other than people. Home Improvement is a Twix TV show. Everyone likes it, and will watch an episode here and there but does anyone you know own the dvd series? Do you DVR it? I think this is another example of how the Twix theory can be used. Please help me come up with other applications and Brent could you provide us with one of better examples that have been mentioned in the past?
Please continue to respond through comments. Help me think of other foods that might fit better. For us here in NC the Twix applies, but I would love to know what the “Twix” cheese is in Wisconsin?
Final Comments
1. Does any one absolutely love Twix as their favorite?
a. Peanut butter twix is a different candy bar and does not apply to the Twix Theory.
2. Original Twix debuted in the US in 1979 and the peanut butter version shortly followed in 1983. However, it was only available until 1997; only to make a permanent return in 2000.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Twix Theory
The Twix Theory, where it all began. So a long time ago I thought of this theory and this was the beginning of it all. The next few posts promise to be more heated and controversial but I felt it was appropriate to begin here.
I love Twix. It is just a solid candy bar. Nothing about it seems to be a turn off. Some candy bars have dark chocolate, which not everyone loves. A lot of commercial chocolate delights have peanuts. Personally I enjoy the salty crunchiness you receive from this inclusion but other people would grossly object. And then of course there is coconut. Seriously… That is a deal breaker.
Back to Twix. Here’s the point. Everyone likes Twix. If you were in a room and saw a Twix, you would eat it. If you were in a store and you saw a Twix you might or might not buy it, it would be a game time decision. But no one sits on their couch watching TV and thinks, “dang, I’m going to get up and go buy a Twix after this episode of House is off.” Most people have their go-to-favorite-candy-snack and no one would place the Twix in this category; even though everyone still really likes Twix. This is a paradox as far as I am concerned.
Let me apply the Twix theory to another aspect of life to expound on my thoughts. There are people who I would say are Twix people. Everyone likes them. If they are present at a gathering it makes the event better and everyone enjoys their company. BUT, if you are sitting at home and you want ONE person to come hang out, or you want to meet someone for dinner, a TWIX is not that person.
So those are my thoughts. I already see some holes in the theory which I plan to correct later in the week. But before that I would love to know your thoughts. Please help me make this work better.
Here are some questions to get your started, but feel free to give your candid comments and thoughtful suggestions.
1. Is Twix right? Is their another candy or food item that fits what I am describing better?
2. Is this wrong? Does this theory stick? Are there inconsistencies?
3. If there are TWIX people… that kind-of sucks.
I love Twix. It is just a solid candy bar. Nothing about it seems to be a turn off. Some candy bars have dark chocolate, which not everyone loves. A lot of commercial chocolate delights have peanuts. Personally I enjoy the salty crunchiness you receive from this inclusion but other people would grossly object. And then of course there is coconut. Seriously… That is a deal breaker.
Back to Twix. Here’s the point. Everyone likes Twix. If you were in a room and saw a Twix, you would eat it. If you were in a store and you saw a Twix you might or might not buy it, it would be a game time decision. But no one sits on their couch watching TV and thinks, “dang, I’m going to get up and go buy a Twix after this episode of House is off.” Most people have their go-to-favorite-candy-snack and no one would place the Twix in this category; even though everyone still really likes Twix. This is a paradox as far as I am concerned.
Let me apply the Twix theory to another aspect of life to expound on my thoughts. There are people who I would say are Twix people. Everyone likes them. If they are present at a gathering it makes the event better and everyone enjoys their company. BUT, if you are sitting at home and you want ONE person to come hang out, or you want to meet someone for dinner, a TWIX is not that person.
So those are my thoughts. I already see some holes in the theory which I plan to correct later in the week. But before that I would love to know your thoughts. Please help me make this work better.
Here are some questions to get your started, but feel free to give your candid comments and thoughtful suggestions.
1. Is Twix right? Is their another candy or food item that fits what I am describing better?
2. Is this wrong? Does this theory stick? Are there inconsistencies?
3. If there are TWIX people… that kind-of sucks.
Who, What, Why and Where?
I have a fascination with people, the world, and how things work. Why do we all act how we do? What is really attractive? Why do your feet get cold when you walk on tile and not on carpet? Some of my questions have scientific answers, some of them are much more theoretical and can be debated for hours. What I love is for people to propose a theory and to have all my intelligent debtors I have as friends to give their two cents to question, challenge and make the theory better. So that’s what I want to do with this blog.
Here is how it will work. Every Sunday I will post a new theory or postulate and will then give a week for people to post their questions, comments, agreements, and dissents. Throughout the week I will then respond to the comments. If necessary the following Saturday I will post my final thoughts, changes, or disclaimers that I feel apply.
I will also post guest theorist that will stand in as the proposer for the week. So feel free to plan and prepare your theories and let me know when they will be ready so I can mark you down on the calendar. As of right now Brent, VZ and I have about ¾ of a calendar year of theories ready to go, but we need more. Feel free to email me and let me know what your plans are so I can schedule you in, especially if you have a seasonal theory (i.e. NCAA basketball, 4th of July etc. etc.) You will see how it is going to work in the first few weeks.
3/1/09: Clayton Greene – The Twix Theory
3/8/09: John Veazey – Fall in Love in Two Dates
3/15/09: Kris Norris – I am still more athletic than the average 18 year old.
3/22/09: Brent Woodcox – Can’t Be Friends With a Woman
3/29/09: John Veazey – You Can Be Friends With a Woman
Can you believe that I describe people and their personalities using candy bars?
Did you know A. J. Walton thinks Wayne Ellington plays better when he has a fresh edge up? And of course you know that Kristen can tell your life story just from looking at how your shoes match your pants.
So if you have ever wondered why Lindsay Veazey married John…
If you think Brent Woodcox is a psycho for thinking men and women can’t just be friends… or if you think there is absolutely no way for Kris Norris to be as athletic as the average 18 year old, tune in, give you input, and let’s see how this goes…
Here is how it will work. Every Sunday I will post a new theory or postulate and will then give a week for people to post their questions, comments, agreements, and dissents. Throughout the week I will then respond to the comments. If necessary the following Saturday I will post my final thoughts, changes, or disclaimers that I feel apply.
I will also post guest theorist that will stand in as the proposer for the week. So feel free to plan and prepare your theories and let me know when they will be ready so I can mark you down on the calendar. As of right now Brent, VZ and I have about ¾ of a calendar year of theories ready to go, but we need more. Feel free to email me and let me know what your plans are so I can schedule you in, especially if you have a seasonal theory (i.e. NCAA basketball, 4th of July etc. etc.) You will see how it is going to work in the first few weeks.
3/1/09: Clayton Greene – The Twix Theory
3/8/09: John Veazey – Fall in Love in Two Dates
3/15/09: Kris Norris – I am still more athletic than the average 18 year old.
3/22/09: Brent Woodcox – Can’t Be Friends With a Woman
3/29/09: John Veazey – You Can Be Friends With a Woman
Can you believe that I describe people and their personalities using candy bars?
Did you know A. J. Walton thinks Wayne Ellington plays better when he has a fresh edge up? And of course you know that Kristen can tell your life story just from looking at how your shoes match your pants.
So if you have ever wondered why Lindsay Veazey married John…
If you think Brent Woodcox is a psycho for thinking men and women can’t just be friends… or if you think there is absolutely no way for Kris Norris to be as athletic as the average 18 year old, tune in, give you input, and let’s see how this goes…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)