Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

I am with the same girl for half my life, so I might not be totally qualified to answer, but I met most interesting girls outside a work context.

That means: on concerts, on hacking camps, in art exhibitions, especially exhibition openings, on film sets etc. These places reflect my interests of course, so I don't go there because of women, I go there because the stuff there interests me. So for you it could be a sports club, a library, an animal rights organization or any number of other, similar places where people of similar interest gather.

The point is: if you want to get to know people (regardless of their gender) exposing yourself to situations where you actually get the chance to meet new people is a good way to increase your chances. Just like your chances of rolling a 6 increase with every roll of the dice.

The important thing is to do it because you like, not because you expect to find women there.

View on HN

I agree that getting out and doing thing you like will let you meet more people but just to be picky here. "concerts?" I couldn't talk to anyone at a concert as the music is too loud". "hacking camps", never seen more than 3% woman at any tech event. library? "shhh!, you're not supposed to talk at a library

> The important thing is to do it because you like,

As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex. It doesn't help that I'm old so it might be true there are some 20 somethings at a hacking event but there are no 50 somethings.

Cooking classes, book club, movie club, volunteering (e.g. environment, local heritage, animal shelter, first aid,...), amateur acting, art classes, group travel, hanging out at vintage records store, coffee bar, dancing classes, music festivals, sports,...

There is a good flow chart for your dating life made by a specific YouTuber which I found highly effective. It can be found by searching YouTube for "wheat waffles flow chart"

This is fascinating!

I'll save everyone the trouble. Here's the flowchart: https://i.ibb.co/WcBtzw7/What-Should-You-Do-In-Your-Dating-L...

Boring redpill ideology stuff.

I mean, from what I can see, it covers the redpill PUA stuff and the regular advice. It's basically saying "if you want to date shallow women interested only in your appearance, do X; if you want to date short-term based on shared interests, do Y; if you want a long-term relationship, do Z" — where some of the things below those split-offs happen to converge back together, due to e.g. the economics of attention in marketplaces like online dating; and the fact that "women at nightclubs" aren't one coherent group with shared goals but actually several independent groups that different men might want to meet for different reasons.

Of course, the phrasing is dumb as hell.

Note that many of the paths lead to don't-date or travel to lower income areas--but note that while that might get you sex it's not very good for finding love. And note that there is only one path from normal looks/not neurotypical to a relationship--and that path doesn't make much sense.

There's also a definite error. Note that an ugly guy who brings himself up to normal with surgery doesn't go through the neurotypical question. That arrow should go back to the top.

There is just about nothing ideological about this flow chart

> sub5 / normie / chad

> looksmaxx, moneymaxx, surgerymaxx

> daygame, nightgame, warm approach

The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.

The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.

The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?

I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.

I stand corrected. However, the question "What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" has criteria WW outlines in "40 Differences in Treatment Between a Sub5, Normie & Chad." The theory isn't extremely rigorous and well defined.

The point isn't whether the criteria are knowable or not, the point is whether one is aligned with them, in terms of views/faiths/beliefs about how to live one's life. Better to think of it as a lens, perspective, frame, etc. which is neither true nor false, but instead accepted or rejected. In other words, it's a moral question.

Slightly condescending virtue signalling allows you to pass information freely without the fear of being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts (and probably frequents PUA-forums)

I don't understand what "slightly condescending virtue signalling" is and how it "allows you to pass information freely" and what the fear is regarding "being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts" or what is wrong with someone who "frequents PUA-forums"

I'm so far removed from this stuff generally I didn't really understand anything in that sentence (lol)

You aren't the only one :) I realize I am equally out of touch.

Libraries have lots of events where you can talk. They've had to reinvent themselves a bit since the internet and are a bit more of a community center nowadays. I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.

I went to a travel blogging meetup at one last year (hosted by library staff members), some events on making podcasts, regular board game nights at another, and there's a whole maker lab set up in the basement of my nearest library, with 3D printers, multiple sound recording rooms, multiple video recording studios, a vinyl cutter, a laser cutter and computers with Adobe suite installed on them that you can use pretty much whenever.

Just looking at next month at adult events at my nearest library: yoga, drawing with pencils and charcoal class, conversational ESL, STEM workshop, a DIY craft event, a cooking class, photography club, meditation class, mixing live albums with Logic Pro class, dungeons and dragons event, coffee and conversation event, business topics workshop, folk art craft diy, trivia night, open mic night, aztec dancing event, line dancing, toastmasters (public speaking), film club, financial planning talk, 24 hour comic book creation event, state paranormal history talk, knitting, writers group, and several book club events. That's not even the kid or teen events. That's a lot, and a wide variety of things.

> "concerts?" I couldn't talk to anyone at a concert as the music is too loud". "hacking camps", never seen more than 3% woman at any tech event. library? "shhh!, you're not supposed to talk at a library

Re: concerts and libraries, you meet people outside of them (for concerts, in line for them, or in the pit waiting for the show to start), not at them per se.

I don't know about "hacking camps" (hackathons? code boot camps?) — never been to one — but a close cousin of these, [industry niche] startup events, tend to attract just as many business cofounders as technical cofounders; and the business cofounders tend to be an even gender split. (They also attract seed-stage VC scouts and marketing people, and these jobs actually tend to lean female.)

> As I said, I do, but none of the things I like involve enough people of the opposite sex.

So... take up some new hobbies?

And when I say that, I don't mean to work "bottom up" starting from what you might like; but rather, "top down", starting from what hobbies your ideal partner might have, and then filtering those for which ones you feel at least amicably neutral about. E.g. if you feel like you'd enjoy being with someone who's also 50yo and "creative", and you're not against e.g. painting, or pottery, or creative writing; then attend a continuing-education course on one of those. Because that's where you'll find other 50yos trying to learn those things.

> I don't know about "hacking camps" (hackathons? code boot camps?) — never been to one — but a close cousin of these, [industry niche] startup events, tend to attract just as many business cofounders as technical cofounders; and the business cofounders tend to be an even gender split. (They also attract seed-stage VC scouts and marketing people, and these jobs actually tend to lean female.)

I think people are going to be weirded out by someone hitting on them at a business event.

I'm not suggesting you do. You make connections, friends, people to work on things with. Then maybe something develops.

However, I should note that as a technical cofounder attending these events, I've been approached and flirted with heavily by single female entrepreneurs who have ideas they haven't started building yet, who seem to be looking for a convenient all-in-one package of "a boyfriend who's also an entrepreneur, who can 'yes, and' my ambitions, and who has enough skill+experience to actually build the tech side of the things we imagine together." I'm neither single, nor a free agent business-wise, but some people can be both very pushy and presumptive.

And rightly so. Why would you "hit on" someone who you don't know?

The first step is always getting to know the other person. Hitting on the other person with romantic interest from the start is a sure way not to get to know them in a low pressure environment. If you get to know the other first, they also get to know you. Typically you'd be searching for someone you are willing to spend your time with, and who is willing to spend time with you. And this is only a feasible endeavour if you know them and they know you.

That means: Your goal is not to find someone to "hit on", your goal is to get to know people. You can still explore if the other is interested in a little bit more, once it is established that you find them interesting and they find you interesting.

By hit on I meant attending with the goal of finding a romantic relationship. Even if you think you’re doing that subtly it’s not the goal of these events. The general advice of cultivate interests and meet new people is great but just divorce that from the expectation of finding romance. In particular targeting activities because of the expectation of increased romantic success seems particularly weird.

Are you looking for solutions or excuses?

I would like to know which dance style you are learning.

My experience is there is a good number of 50 somethings in tango.

And like I said elsewhere, it's much more of a café scene than a bar scene, making it easier to socialize.

About the concert thing: people tend to interact in the queue to the concert venue. People tend to talk after a concert. Extra perk: you already have a topic to talk about.

Hacking camps are sure not a typical source of women, but what I said was not "search places where women are", but rather "put yourself out there, but in places that match your interest". If it turns out that place has no women at all, sure that won't help for that purpose. Keep in mind that I cited examples that worked for a young (35-ish) person like me.

It is not easy to find someone you like, regardless of gender, but putting yourself out there is one of the best ways to do it. Even if your thing is IT, there might be places that need it. E.g. a friend did IT for kids in need and he certainly met one ore another women his age there.

i feel like in current culture its considered kind of creepy to approach women in a non-party social context like hackathon

they often complain they are made to feel uncomfortable by that

In non-party social contexts consider becoming friends first approaching either sex with the same questions you'd ask people sharing the same interests. Then ask for contacts to share and receive opportunities for similar events. Then deepen your friendship and get to know each other better asking about events outside your groups' interests but more of pairwise mutual interest.

Whether this comes across as stalking or courting depends on how weird or creepy you come across. Basically, once you leave university, your ability to spend a lot of time with people you're allowed to date kind of dries up, because people don't want to be counted at work.

I'm sorry, but the early-mid steps what I described is completely how you make friends and close friends as well. If someone is in a social context and take offense with people trying to be friends, they are the problem.

How you 'feel' isn't always reality. I am not dating now, but it's a bit odd to suggest you can't put yourself out there because of the 'climate' or 'culture'. Who cares what the climate is, if you're being genuine and nice there is nothing to worry about.

If you're worried you will be perceived as a creep then you need to work on your delivery/how you approach strangers.

Members of the opposite sex are just people. They want to be treated normally. My most successful male friend(in terms of dating) just treats females like they're normal people. He pretty much never has trouble and he is a 6 at most with a shitbox car.

I used to think women only care about money etc; and That is true..for a certain subset of women. So many more don't care at all, and just want a nice loyal person who won't shit on them. And yes, you need to moderately TRY to look attractive. Go to the gym, get a proper haircut, stop wearing those shitty jeans and ugly shoes. YOU also need to put in effort, it's not just on the other gender.

> Members of the opposite sex are just people. They want to be treated normally. My most successful male friend(in terms of dating) just treats females like they're normal people. He pretty much never has trouble and he is a 6 at most with a shitbox car.

Just a suggestion. You think he is a "6" but you are probably wrong because you are unable to view him from the perspective of a woman's gaze. See my other post in my profile's comments about the flow chart stuff.

I did even better than him when I was dating and am objectively more attractive in many ways. So no, I am not wrong. He is a solid 6. lmao.

I appreciate your input though!

If you're only interested in talking to the person if they're a potential partner, you're going to have a lot of failures (unless it's something like a speed dating course).

You work on getting to know people as friends, some of whom you may consider dating.

And if your interests are things that mostly appeal to your own gender this doesn't work very well.

Your chance of rolling a six never changes. It's always 16.67%

Reply on news.ycombinator.com