Nice Guys and Relationships

So a while back someone I knew was very drunk and complaining to me. Of course, it was about a girl.

He liked this girl, she didn’t like him back…that was really it. BUT, he was going on and on and on about how he was so nice to her and she STILL didn't like him, that she doesn’t know what’s good for herself and maybe he just shouldn’t be nice at all anymore.

Now he was intoxicated, but I still couldn’t believe the words I was hearing. This is that "nice guys finish last" thing you hear in high school!

So I'm writing this post as a sort of response to that idea, and hopefully it can help anyone else, guy or gal, who is struggling with a similar situation.

~~Let's roll~~


Ok so first off, he’s thinking that basically because he’s so nice to her, she should fall for him. This seems to kind of make sense, until you consider some things:

1. If niceness is all that makes someone attracted to someone else, then what's to stop someone from being nicer to this girl than you were? Based on your logic, this person would leave you instantly! But this doesn't happen, and that's because of the next thing...
2. What attracts us to people is complicated, and not one-dimensional (i.e. it'll never be niceness alone). I mean, you could meet the nicest person in the world and not be attracted to them for many reasons! This is because we're also attracted to elements like ambition, personality, physical attractiveness, and sense of humour. Attraction is a complex combination of so many things that one alone would never sway a person (or, at least, it shouldn't). 
3. Finally, you said “oh maybe I shouldn’t be nice in general anymore.” Okay, I’m assuming you meant you'd stop being nice just to people you're romantically interested in and not the general population, because the latter would be pretty stupid. So now that we have that established, here's the thing about this: yeah, niceness isn't the sole determinant for relationships, but girls like people who are nice!! Why would a girl, or anyone want to be with someone who’s mean?? I realize I’m not a girl here, but you gotta just trust me on this one. If a girl you like is attracted to someone who (in your view) isn't as nice as you are, it just means she sees another meaningful and attractive quality in him or her besides niceness.

So after I explained this to him, he proceeded to analogize his affection for this person: "What if you find the prettiest, most beautiful flower in the field, and you know it's the one for you and that there are no other flowers like her, but you can't have it. What then?"

There are a lot of reasons this analogy isn’t great.

1. The idea that this is the most beautiful flower you’ll ever see becomes true when you decide you’re not going to explore the field anymore! If you just stand there admiring it, of course you’ll never find anything better! There’s a whole field of other beautiful flowers to find!
2. But for argument’s sake, let’s say that this is indeed the most beautiful flower in the field, okay? Well to this I'll tell you that our personal standards of attraction change as we mature physically and emotionally. We will be attracted to different things at different points in our life, so even if that flower is (improbably) the most beautiful in the field, as you mature it probably won’t stay that way! And look, I know it’s really hard to get your mind around this and the last point when you're really into someone. I've been there. But I promise you that it always gets better with time. 

BUT OKAY let’s say it really is the most beautiful flower and you’re never going to change the way you feel (unlikely). There's still one huge problem with this analogy: women aren't flowers! You see, flowers are passive objects—they get admired and picked. But women (and people) are not!!! Except in extreme circumstances, people get their say in deciding who're they're attracted to. That’s just how relationships work.

Instead of looking at a relationship like admiring a flower, I think a better analogy is those hotel doors that connect rooms. If you’re attracted to someone, you can open your door and show it. But nothing will happen unless they open their door too, and just like in an actual hotel, they have the right not to open it.

Now when I was explaining all of this to him…well, most of it wasn’t getting through because he was really drunk. But I was also getting really angry that I even had to explain this stuff to him! But as I thought about it more, I realized something: he had never had any of this explained to him. Maybe it seems basic to you or me, but without hearing this concretely it can be a confusing and difficult concept to grasp. 

And when you view someone's actions through this lens, it becomes really difficult to stay angry with them. You just want to tell them "hey man, this is how the world works, and you’ll be happier and healthier when it sinks in." Unfortunately, I didn’t realize this in the moment and was getting incredibly frustrated with him…but yeah. Hopefully this helps some of you deal with this type of stuff. It would have been helpful to me too when I was younger.

Why I have this blog

Hey there. So most of you who read this probably know I have a YouTube channel, Conjecture. There I've uploaded informational videos and vlogs. [The word "vlog" tends to have a simple or vapid connotation, though mine are more informational like the vlogbrothers' videos.]

Though I like my vlogging, I've decided that I want to direct less attention towards them on Conjecture. There are two main reasons for this:

1. I think the informational videos are usually more fun to research and more rewarding than the vlogs, but more importantly...
2. Because I generate vlog ideas faster than informational ones, they can take over my channel. 

Yeah, the vlogs would begin to outpace my informational videos. I would have 5 vlog ideas I'm thinking and writing about but all of my informational videos would be on hold.

So because I still like a lot of the ideas but want to do more informational videos, I'm posting all of my vlog ideas here—the only real difference is now they don't have video accompaniment. The really important or personally meaningful vlog ideas will still make their way to YouTube, but I'm expecting to post a lot fewer on YT.

I also realized this site can store all the other creative, non-YT things I do (like podcasts and typewriter musings). It's all an experiment, so let me know what you think! 

New Podcast!

I started a Podcast with my friend, Will. It's all about Psychology and education and learning and improvement and happiness. Take a listen :)

https://soundcloud.com/the-brunch-podcast/hello

UPDATE: This podcast is discontinued until further notice :(

Typewriter 2

Typewriter 1

“_________ IS A STUPID IDIOT!”

Reminder: Donald Trump is a Tremendous Idiot

7 Reasons why Liberals are Incapable of Understanding the World

Whenever I see articles with titles like these, I get pretty upset. Before the piece has even begun, the author’s language has communicated that they (1) lack the basic decency required to have productive discussions, and (2) are probably too biased to understand the other side, if they’re even able to. 

Essentially, these articles serve mainly to ignite the passions behind the like-minded people who routinely read them. When our nation is the most polarized it has been in 20 years, what we need are avenues for discussion and debate that promote understanding rather than hoisting up a winning individual or ideology. 

Do you know one of the best ways to make someone close off their willingness to consider competing ideas? Insult them or someone they support. And not only is it a bad strategy for discussion, it’s just rude. I am liberal-leaning, yes, but the only reason I would ever flat-out dismiss someone is not if their ideology differs, but if they’re being a jerk and not even attempting to understand a different point of view. I simply don’t want to surround myself with people like that.

I don’t exactly know how we can begin to change this volatile climate, so I will instead leave you with a quote that is becoming more accurate every day:

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer

con·jec·ture | kənˈjekCHər

A while ago I was Googling "Conjecture" to see where my YouTube channel would come up in the results. The first thing anyone sees when Googling it is this:

Seeing that was…fun. I guess I knew the meaning of the word before I created my channel, but I had always interpreted conjecture as more of an educated guess, almost like a hypothesis. 

Later on, @Blackmak5 tweeted this photo at me:

A general conclusion based on facts and results? That’s way better than what Google said. But now I had these two pretty different meaning of conjecture, so I wanted to do some digging and find out what this word really means. 

Let’s start off with the etymological origins.

Here we see that the word “conjecture” comes originally from the combination of the Latin “con” (together) and “jacere” (to throw). So the word’s original verb form, conicere, literally meant “to throw together,” referring specifically to thoughts. The word's noun form, conjetura, represented the product of thrown-together thoughts: a conclusion. 

So the modern word “conjecture" should be what you get when you piece results or thoughts together. That’s how I had interpreted it, and it's the definition @Blackmak5 found in his math textbook. But that sounds very different from the current definition Google provides, "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information." Somewhere along the line an additional connotation was added to the definition, that the information used to form it is inherently incomplete. That connotation may have been the Old French influence, or simply a result of the way language changes. I don’t know 

But wait, the definition @Blackmak5 found was from a math textbook…so is there a mathematical definition for “conjecture” different from Google’s general definition?


Let's take a look at Wikipedia's definition of mathematical conjecture:

"In mathematics, a conjecture is a conclusion or proposition based on incomplete information, but for which no proof has been found.” That doesn’t really bode well, either. But it goes on to say that conjectures "have shaped much of mathematical history as new areas of mathematics are developed in order to solve them.” 

So while the layman’s definition has "conjecture" as a conclusion formed by throwing together a bunch of incomplete information, mathematics interprets conjecture more like an idea that encourages the development of new science. That is the definition I want to get behind. 

Or, you know, I could just change my channel name to conjecturevlog since that’s my channel twitter and subreddit, and it’d make everything more unique, searchable and consistent. 

We’ll see.