hURR dURR dERP said:
If you "aren't as good" as someone you like (which IMO is an idiotic statement to begin with), what does it matter? Should you aim lower? If yes, you're limiting yourself because of a percieved difference in worth, which to me is what having a low self-esteem would mean. If not, your post has little meaning.
This may be the main sticking point in our discussion. If one approaches this idea with the presumption that there is no objective measure of desirability, and that there is no "better" in the world of dating (much less believes the concept to be idiotic), then it's going to be a short discussion with someone who believes the opposite. Yes, you're limiting yourself because of a difference in worth (perceived or not). You never answered, however, how it can be "low" self esteem to state the proposition "I am not the most desirable person, and thus have an infinitesimally small chance with someone who is more desirable". You believe "normal" self-esteem requires you not limit your dreams, and believe you deserve and can achieve anything; I'd call that supreme arrogance.
hURR dURR dERP said:
Either way, I object to the very spirit of your post. The very idea of deserving or not deserving a certain partner is just plain offensive. Who decides who deserves what? Your answer can't be anything but arbitrary. At most you could say that your prospective partner is the one who decides that, and you won't know that until you actively pursue the option, and if you're going after someone you like just because you like them, not just because you think you deserve them, then the difference doesn't matter in the first place.
Well, no, your statement that my answer "can't be anything but arbitrary" is itself arbitrary, and barefacedly wrong. Similarly, the question of whether one is desirable as a romantic partner is not limited to being decided by ones "prospective" partner, it's also been decided by previous prospective partners, and by the rest of society. Even beyond that, there are objective measurements we know to exist as markers of desirability (a more symmetrical face, for instance). So... Yeah
hURR dURR dERP said:
Sure, you might have a better shot at someone who's less attractive, intelligent, funny, rich, friendly or whatever you find important in a partner, but I really feel sorry for the kind of person who'd need to use a checklist to see if he wants to get together with someone or not. Relationships aren't logical to begin with, and even if someone is unattainable for you, you won't know for sure until you try it. If you give up on a shot at love just because you don't like your chances, then yes, I'd call that low self-esteem. Or at the very least low self-confidence.
As before, you're trying to put words in my mouth to try to back me into a corner, but that's both a dishonest and flawed debating tactic. I never advocated using a checklist to determine compatibility (though if you've ever used a dating service, that's what they do, you know). But, you make two statements without any supporting evidence or logic behind them: "relationships aren't logical" and "if someone is unattainable for you, you won't know for sure until you try". To the first, that's an unfounded assertion, and flies in the face of any reasonable assessment of the dating world. Dating is economics, pure and simple, we try to get the highest quality of partner we can (quality being measured differently based on priorities), for as little effort as we can. To the second; your statement is correct, but both irrelevant and misleading. I don't know for
certain that if I contract the Ebola virus I'm going to die, but based on prior experience, existing evidence, and an objective analysis of my level of health versus the lethality of the virus, I'm looking at an early grave. There's no need for 100% certainty, that's an unreasonable standard for evidence.
hURR dURR dERP said:
Don't get me wrong: I fully support your opinion that it's important to know your own flaws and weaknesses. I just don't think you should allow yourself to be limited by those, especially in such an uncertain thing as a relationship. You'll spend your entire life being limited by others, there's little need to limit yourself inside your own mind as well. You keep talking about what's reasonable, but IMO that's just a way of colouring your own vision and limiting yourself.
Yep, we're hitting that basic wall again. What I see as accepting ones flaws, and adjusting ones expectations accordingly, you view as "limiting yourself". And, no, relationships aren't "uncertain" simply "complex", there's a difference. I don't understand specifically the inner-workings of my computer, but that doesn't make it a magical, impenetrable, box which cannot be understood rationally. Complexity and uncertainty aren't even close to the same thing.
hURR dURR dERP said:
And as far as using appearance as a desirable vs undesirable example: It's just that, an example. If I had to list everything a person could find attractive in another person, my hands would hurt from all the typing. And besides, even if you don't like to admit it, appearance is always the first thing someone pays attention to when meeting someone new, and in many situations will determine whether to "go for it" or not.
So, suppose for a moment that you know you're not the most physically attractive guy, let's even say you're a bit of a dorky-looking cretin. Realizing, as you do, that the first thing everyone pays attention to is physical looks, do you have any reasonable expectation that the hot girl sitting across from you has any interest whatsoever in getting to know you? By your earlier logic, it's impossible to tell, and you shouldn't limit yourself, which is fine, but you shouldn't expect to succeed.
