Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Ambiguous signals
Message-ID: <415@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 02:20:02 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.415
Posted: Tue Nov  6 02:20:02 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 02:36:34 EST
Reply-To: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 48

On Dan's latest posting... you mentioned that she was swamped by work.  If
she still is, I can well understand that she might not want to make future
committments, particularly on something as potentially important as a
relationship.  Even if she might soon have the time, it may be something she
just doesn't want to think about, as she's focussing on the demands of her
job.  Perhaps asking about her work, or suggesting you meet for a half hour
(so it's not an open-ended demand on her time) would be appropriate.

On ambiguous signals... I was given a fascinating game, based on Rutherford's
experiments with the atom.  (He explored the atom's structure (nucleus,
surrounding electrons, etc.) by shooting particles into it and observing
how they scattered).  The game consists of a tray with an 8x8 (or so) matrix
of holes in which marbles can rest.  There are about a dozen marbles that
are distributed, in secret, in the holes and then a cover is placed over all
of them.  Along the side of the tray are holes in which sticks can be
inserted, to "probe" the internal structure.  I can't remember the specific
rules, but the idea is to determine the internal pattern of marbles by
probing it this way.  It's similar to Battleships, but with a more interesting
probing method.  It's great for would-be experimenters in many fields.

The original postings assumed that someone has a "YES" or "NO" hidden
somewhere inside of them (corresponding to a definite pattern of marbles),
but Phil Ngai pointed out that this is probably not the case... I'd agree,
usually.  Sometimes, I have a definite "NO" in my mind, if the person smokes
or is, for example, a self-avowed racist.  But far more often, I have a
fairly vague impression of a person, more like a blob of jelly than a
pattern of marbles, and a correspondingly vague idea of whether I want to
spend time with them.

If the goal is just to determine whether there's a "YES" or "NO" there,
try to get the most out of each question.  But it's nicer just to interact
for a while, just for the sake of it (e.g. to learn something about someone
else), once in a while "probing" (and at that time, it makes sense, again,
to get the most out of each question-- think, before you ask, what will a
"yes", "no", or "maybe" mean?).

Thinking of Dan's situation, "Do you want to spend Fri evening with me?"
might not be a good question, because a "No" could mean either that she is
swamped with work OR that she just doesn't want to.  "Would you like a
half-hour break sometime?" is probably better, but probably not perfect
(maybe she wouldn't like to interrupt her train of thought).

The one thing I guess I worry about too much is that asking a question too
early, in the "jelly" stage, is that it will "precipitate" a solid
structure, possibly negative, that would be hard to get rid of.  Still, as
Chuq says, one can't take such things too seriously.

p. rowley, U. Toronto