30vanquish

It's easier. I go to another UC myself and while I agree with most of what you say, I see more and more people interacting with one another. Hopefully this trend continues.

But I get it. For almost all of our evolutionary past, we were in tribes where everyone looked like us. While we're more open to diversity, it takes a certain type of person to want to go outside the comfort zone.

In the past, this would mean getting eaten by an animal or getting killed by a rival tribe. If you looked different, believed in different things, etc. you are dead.

So being with like-minded people, even if you're liberal or whatever is the remnants of human evolution that we haven't fully gotten over yet.

Besides, it's safer. Easier to relate to people who look like you and think like you.

It's what keeps me going. I can't control what happens after I die but I can control what happens in this life. So I'm going to make my purpose in this life ---making an impact now. Even if it's ultimately meaningless in the universe's timeframe, so be it.

You shouldn't care about the person in front of you until they have proven their worth. "Hotness" is simply giving the women a chance to prove herself. If she does, then you can create a good connection. It doesn't have to end up as an empty experience. If she doesn't have a mind past that hotness, then walk away (or have an empty experience to learn). It would be wrong to say it's always empty.

Higher value is an overrated trait. It's definitely important but it isn't the end-all, be-all. Confidence/fun/etc. is.

"Hot" is subjective. Your hot could be average to me and vice versa. It depends on what your priorities are in a relationship. If you found a hot catch and you are willing to challenge other candidates, why not? That could be fun within itself. If you want a one night stand, that's you. If you want a long term relationship with a decent enough girl, that's cool too.

If I talk to someone on a music forum, then you could talk about that music artist. Then from there if they list on their profile that they like the soccer team, Barcelona, and the movie, The Matrix, (for examples), then I send them a message:

"Hi, so what's your favorite album by [music artist]? Mine is probably _____. Have you been catching up on how Barcelona is doing? I also like the Matrix movie. If you were in Neo's position, would you choose the red or blue pill? I would probably pick blah blah because blah blah.

-Matt"

It has that mindset to see what works and what doesn't. I'll agree there probably are easier ways to meet and make friends.

That's cool. Everyone has their own taste. If some people are turned off by reading my blog, it's the same as dressing up a certain way (some people like it, others not so much).

Thanks for the great insight.

With the help of skype, you can see body language, tone (non-verbal communication) almost as well as real life now.

Location isn't a barrier anymore and that's what makes the internet so powerful.

>The system he’s using is already self-selecting for those who are open enough to be suitable for such things.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Most of the 50 people I've talked I've connected with for at least six months.

The way I make messages online pretty much ignores small talk. I try to steer the conversation to that depth as quickly as possible. If someone is willing to tell you about their deep experiences (and it makes logic sense) then they're most likely authentic.

Hello Erik, Thanks for the constructive criticism.

I'm not here to please the people who think that writing to 400 people to make friends is creepy. Everyone makes friends and eventually you'll have to talk to 400 strangers whether or not it's formal/non-formal.

> But it also means that you can not do anything connection related.

Well that vision is a work in progress. I can't please everyone but I can extend my hand to everyone to give them the opportunity to connect. If they see it as creepy, their loss.

There's something called growth. If I can grow into connecting, great. If not, it's worth a shot to try anyways.

Those 4 people who are extremely close I've known for 1-4 years. You did make a good point about the 50 friends. However, like I said before, each person has their own interpretation of what a friend is. If it's a year, then it's a year for some. If you want to use the year requirement, then I'll say the 50 number drops to more like 15, not zero.

How would it be creepy? It's just like any friend you would make. You have to start by talking to a stranger.

If you want to do it in a formal manner like a classroom, a workplace, a meetup, then that's cool.

I simply don't want to limit myself to just that.

It all comes down to putting your own variation on something that exists. Then once you put out many variations on that original item, then that original item is now your new creation.

Ex: Just listen to music from the same genre. Each artist has their own song but there are similar elements from each song of all artists in that genre.

that is true. we were talking about a party where two circles can have more potential to become one. if g+ plus does do that, i'll be sure to keep checking out functions on it.

i like that meeting friends of other friends way of doing things and being yourself. good reminders.

also one way why i don't like g+ circles is the reinforcement of not being able to merge groups.

thats why i like online interaction. your first meeting can work on their particular interest. but you can build to that in real life interactions too.

thanks for the reply.

When it comes to real life, I second the last point because people in motion are much tougher to approach than someone who is sitting and stationary.

Community does let you get past the rapport issue more quickly. But besides that one interest, how do you go farther?

I also agree that quieter places are better so you don't have environmental interference.

It's the same amount of filtering like the other reply.

It comes down to wanting social interactions without having to go through that small talk stuff that most people need to go through in real life.

I also do volunteer my time as well. Although I do understand concern for making the best use of one's time. I only messaged people whom I felt there was potential.

The same filtering applies though because you can attend things where there aren't many people you could relate to or you can only relate with that one particular interest and nothing else.

You've brought up good points. More and more exposure when it comes to work and school can benefit real life relationships as well.

However, when I've met people online, I don't connect with them really well until the 2nd attempt. (I give people 2 chances).

When you're in real life and it's just a stranger that passes by, you never get that potential second chance.

Friend to me is where two people can have rapport about one or more subjects. If I talk to someone about basketball and only basketball, then that's a friend to me.

Good comment in bringing up that everyone has their own interpretation and standards to what a friend is.

Great insight on this. It tends to hold true for many social aspects. It's something that I take into account when I get rejected or the talk can't go beyond any certain subject/topic because it's nothing personal. The certain wavelength or timing when you met causes the talk to never reach that long-lasting depth.