Having Faith

Yesterday, one of my friends and fellow disciples in the ways of awkwardness and social unacceptability, Elisse, gave a Sunday School lesson in which she urged the congregation to reread and study their patriarchal blessings.  I read mine again yesterday after I got back from church.  There have always been three paragraphs in my blessing that have been the most interesting up to this point in my life.  One of these has largely been fulfilled (I hope), one is entirely in progress, and the third is clearly yet to be.  As I read my blessing yesterday, it hit me how truly prophetic and (apparently) sequential these things are.

Patriarchal Blessings are given to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the Lord through ordained patriarchs and usually contain counsel and promised blessings to the individual based on his or her faithfulness.  Because of the personalized nature of these blessings, they should be considered sacred.  Members of the church are generally discouraged from reading their blessings out loud or sharing them with others outside of their immediate family.  In this post, I will share three short lines from my patriarchal blessing, which give only the most general idea of the content.  The vast majority of my blessing will not be shared.  I'm aware that this is very much the electronic equivalent of reading portions of my blessing out loud (in a public square), but I believe that the passages are short enough to maintain the personalization and sacredness of the blessing.  More importantly, I feel prompted by the Spirit to share these things as they appear below.

The three most interesting paragraphs of my blessing appear in order right in the middle of the blessing.  There are several short paragraphs before these three, and a few longer ones after these three, but the Lord put the most interesting parts to my life at this time right in the middle.

First, the part that I think and hope has largely been fulfilled:

"It is important to continue your education.  As you enter institutions of higher learning, you will be able to discern between right and wrong and cleave to the principles of truth."

 I say that I hope that this is mostly fulfill because I'm oh-so-close to getting my master's degree and, at this time, I don't plan on getting a third degree... ever.  If the Lord needs/wants me to get a Ph.D., I won't fight him on it, but I have basically no desire to do so of myself.

The part that's almost eerily prophetic is that it states that I will enter institutions of higher learning; plural.  At this point, I've studied for two different degrees at three different institutions and have, most of the time, had a spirit of discernment about me.  I have largely been able to discern truth from fallacy in what I've seen, heard, and been taught, and have been able to choose what is good.

Next, the part that I'm so in the middle of, it's slightly painful:

"The Lord knows the righteous desires of your heart.  You will be called to serve a mission to take the message of the gospel to many who have never had an opportunity to receive it."

When I went to get my patriarchal blessing in 2006, the patriarch asked me a few questions about myself so that he'd have a better idea of who I am and what my blessing should contain.  At some point, he asked me about my goals or aspirations for the future were... or something like that, I honestly don't remember the question or his response to it.  However, I do remember the Spirit actively engaging my vocal cortex to cause me to say, "I'd like to go on a mission."  The response to that statement came as the first sentence of the passage I shared above.  It didn't seem that profound at the time, but little did I know...

During the five, or so, years that I was called to not serve, I took that first sentence as a mild consolation that I would still be able to serve, probably later in life, as a senior missionary.  Since September or October, when I found out that I would, apparently, be able to serve in my youth, the entire process involved with having that first sentence in my blessing has blown my mind open so wide, you could fit a softball through it.  This has been a clear testimony to me of the omnipotence, omniscience, and infinite love of the Lord for me, on an individual level.  It's like the Lord walking out of an alley, taking off his tie, and saying "Like so," but on a much grander and more powerful scale.  (Don't worry if you don't catch that reference, but bonus points if you do.)

Finally, the part that remains unfulfilled:

"[T]he time will come in your life when you will desire to marry.  You will be lead to one of God's righteous daughters who is choice and has a testimony of the gospel."

I'm not honestly sure how the first sentence will manifest itself.  I mean, I've felt some desire to marry for a while, but it's almost like the Lord is saying, "No, you have not yet begun to feel a desire to marry!"  It kind of scares me... in possibly the least scary way imaginable.

The more profound portion of this statement is in the second sentence.  The Lord states, in no uncertain terms, that there is not only a woman for me, but that he will actively lead me to her when the time is right.  At times I've worried that there worried be a woman for me or that other things would get in the way, but the answer is pretty clearly, "Quit freaking out, dude, I got this," or probably something a little more eloquent.  If I will maintain faith, I can know that not only will there be a woman for me, but that the Lord will lead me to her in a way that will probably be about as obvious as an angel holding a blinking neon sign reading, "Pick This One!"

At various times in my life, I've had trouble cultivating and maintaining that faith to trust in the Lord.  Because I couldn't discern a clear path to the blessings based on the trends that I saw at the time, I didn't want to believe that they would be mine.  However, as I've continued to walk in the path that the Lord has set for me, I've watched the blessings unfold and become manifest in precisely the way that he assured me they would be.  He could see the end from the beginning, even though I could not.  At the moment, even though I cannot discern, in particular, how the Lord will bless me with an eternal marriage and family, he has assured me, in no uncertain terms, that he will provide me with the opportunity to receive such.  Unlike the me of old, I want to maintain faith and resolve to trust in the Lord and his goodness that he will provide the blessings that he has promised me.  I've doubted him before, but I'm going to do my best to not do it again.

The Problem

Based on whatever knowledge you have of my life, you might have already formulated some ideas on why it lacks romance and/or spousage.  Based solely on what you read in this blag, you can justifiably come to the conclusion that I have a few emotional issues.  However, the more distance I put between myself and my mother, both temporally and spatially, the less of a problem this really is.  You might also come to the conclusion that I'm somewhat passive around women.  This is also much less true than it used to be.  At age 16, I wanted nothing to do with girls and they pretty much reciprocated that desire.  However, at 23, I'm much more comfortable around women than I've been before.  I've also come to the conclusion that I'm less approachable to women because of my size (~6'2" and 250 lbs) and the Native American blood that gives me something of a disapproving scowl on my face even when I'm not unhappy.  You could also think that I might have trouble finding a woman who's as smart as me, who gets my sense of humor, etc.  The list goes on and on.

I do not consider any of these 'typical' issues to be the biggest problem between me and women.  This biggest problem is that both they and I move.  In the last five years, between Denver, Provo, and Corvallis, I've probably moved 7 times.  Some of those were very temporary, but there has been large uncertainty about exactly where I would be in the not-so-distant future.

For the sake of completeness, let's first discuss long-distance relationships: they don't work.

Now moving on, from about February of '10 to September of '10, I met 3 women that I could have definitely seen myself marrying.  Two of these were in Provo before I graduated and one was in Denver after I moved back in with parents.  In all three cases, I had no idea where I was going to be living a year from the date I met them.

In the case of both the women in Provo, I was getting ready to close out my time as an undergrad student and didn't really know what I was going to do afterward.  During this time, I just wasn't concerned with women because I had more pressing issues like how I was going to eat in 6 months' time.  I still held the delusion that I was going to find a job somewhere in industry, which wasn't the case.  In addition, asking a women whom you only met 3 months ago to move with you is asking a lot, even when you're 100% certain about the location.  When you have no idea where you're planning on moving, it's just downright socially unacceptable. 

In the case of the third woman, I was still totally uncertain about where I was going to be in a year's time.  I had not yet started applying for grad schools, though it was apparent that that would at least be a backup plan.  I was still not particularly concerned with women until about April of '11 for the same reasons as before I graduated from college.  By the time my future became secure enough to feel comfortable dating again, I knew that I was going to be moving to Oregon in the fall and didn't really feel the need to ask any woman to move with me.

A component of these conundra is the fact that, in 2012, women can easily lead their own lives.  In 1952, it was likely that many women were basically just waiting around for a husband.  In 1972, there was still a statistically significant chance that a woman (especially a Mormon) would not be doing much in preparation for marriage.  In 2012, more women go to college than men.  (This is largely a racial issue, but that's a post for another day.)  Women have plans for their lives like work, school, or a mission that they don't necessarily want to drop just to follow a potential spouse around.  This is another reason that it's harder to get married now than when your bishop got married.

As I move forward, I have the better part of a year and a half in Oregon before my future will, again, become uncertain.  If I find a woman who I want to marry, I have enough time to court her an build a relationship.  The prospects don't necessarily look all that bright at the moment, though I hold out hope.

Jerk Theory and the Law of Chastity

After my last post about 9 hours ago, I received a comment from one Colonel Crimson, who, I'm about 99% confident, is a SpUte fan (but hey, we all have our faults.)  After reading through a few posts on the Colonel's blag, there are two things that I want to say.

The first is that the tenants of 'Jerk Theory' or 'The Game' are at least half true.  Jerk theory basically states that women prefer men who treat them like crap; women will deny this left and right, but they often end up with guys who treat them like crap, regardless of how much they say they want a guy who's funny, nice, and smart.  In the words of the Colonel, women will follow after "alpha (α) males" (douchebags, essentially) while ignoring the "beta (β) males" who are less aggressive.  On the contrary, women will tell you that they want a guy who treats them well and respects them.  These two ideas are contradictory and neither seem to reflect the total reality.

Because of the evolution of the human race, there are compromises between aggression and docility (for lack of a better word) among males.  In primal human males, the trait of aggression was perpetuated not only because more aggressive men were more likely to pursue women with whom to reproduce, but also because aggressive men were more likely to be able to protect their offspring from outside threats and keep them alive to reproduce and pass on those genes.  However, aggression is not a universally beneficial concept in the realm of evolution.  A male who is too aggressive will be prone to killing his mate and/or their offspring and will not be able to pass down his genes.  Thus, there is a balance to strike between the aggressive and the docile characteristics of males.

Primal females had to strike that balance, and try to find a man who was aggressive enough to protect their offspring, but not so aggressive as to kill and eat them.  We can observe similar behavior in modern women.  The traits of aggression and docility are manifest as confidence and niceness (again for lack of a better word) respectively in men.  These ideas are not inherently mutually exclusive, even though one tends to take away from the other in the observed populace.   The best responses I've received from women have been at times when I was both confident and respectful.  From what I've been able to gather from my time on the Earth, women want a man who has both swagger and a deep respect for the woman who he's with.

Unfortunately, the traits of confidence and aggression often end being correlated with self motivation, greed, and straight-up douchebaggery.  Due to the nature of our evolution, the slightly more aggressive ends up edging out the slightly more docile and the aggressive man who treats women like crap ends up with more women than the docile man who tries to remember what his mom told him about being nice to women.  Thus, jerk theory is born even though a balance between confidence and respect would be more ideal.

I have to add as a slight disclaimer to this logic, that, in my adult life, I've generally pursued women who were fairly nice and docile themselves.  I'm not the kind of guy who goes after the b*tchy, slutty my-size Barbie doll.  If that's the woman you're after, then treating her like crap might just be the way to go.  And also, as if you couldn't tell from my last post, I'm not exactly the mack daddy of Heimlich County; these are just analytical observations I've made of other relationships as well as of my own along with a parallel to principles of biology to reconcile both jerk theory and what women do to reality.

Secondly, I'd like to bear my witness of the law of the chastity.  I was a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I've experience firsthand that sexual contact is not the way to long term happiness.  In the end, the only way to avoid the heartbreak and sadness that eventually come from illicit sexual activity is to abstain from it altogether.  I've felt empty and worthless as a direct result of the things that I've done, and it was only through the atonement of Christ that I was able to feel whole.  I have a testimony that marriage in the temple is ordained by God and I have set it as a goal for myself to make that covenant, despite all the stacked odds against me.

And to Colonel Crimson, if you end up reading this, I want you to know that I respect you, I really do.  You refuse to accept the bullsh*t that women dish out about just wanting a guy who's "nice and funny."  You've taken a step back, examined the facts as they really are, and realized that what we hear isn't usually what we see.  Naturally, I think your conclusions are slightly misguided, but I respect you for making them nonetheless.  Stay classy, my friend.

This Post is Gonna Get Like a Billion Pageviews

People who have just met me are often surprised to find out that I'm about 97% confident that I won't get married during this lifetime.  I think I usually come off fairly typical and maybe even desirable (though that's pushing it) when you first meet me and it takes a while to realize that I'm actually a stark raving lunatic.  This is probably why I've been engaged... twice... and neither of them has worked out.  Both fiancées #1 and #2 realized somewhere along the line that I'm actually a terrible idea.

The particular event that inspired this post was a bishop's fireside that, naturally, focused on finding a spouse.  Most of the people in my ward don't know me that well and were/might be surprised that I hurried off afterward to go cry myself to sleep.  I this might offer a little clarity for those who REALLY want to know.

As with my other posts about women, if you're easily offended or disturbed, please take the opportunity to look away now.  I'd also re-examine what you're doing surfing the internet, but that might just be me.

Let's examine the evidence of why I probably won't end up married anytime soon:

• My mother didn't love me enough.  More strictly, she didn't love me in a way that I (or sane people) could feel loved.  It's a terrible cliché, I know, but without the unconditional love of a mother or any other female figure in my life (which there was none) I have a hard time believing that a woman might love me, personally, for who I am. 
• My mother tragically skewed my view of women.  There's no two ways around it, my mother hates men, and it shows in the way she treats my father.  In her eyes, the only men who are worthy to live are the ones with big, fat wallets, and 12-or-more-inch long penises.  Since my mother is the only woman I really knew growing up, I somehow gained the impression that women didn't really like men, but tolerated them for the hard labor and spermatozoa.  In a cruel twist of irony, this song was made by Good Charlotte... any guesses at what my mom's name is?
• I didn't exactly grow up with the best example of a healthy and stable marriage.  My parents tell me they love each other, but it's really hard to tell by looking at them.  Their time together was usually dominated by my mom criticizing my dad and throwing crap at him while my dad swore profusely. The times they told me they loved each other were outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the times they told me how big of a prick/b*tch the other one was.  When this is your mental picture of marriage, it's not exactly something you run out to sign up for.
• Contemporary western society doesn't exactly embrace men.  Why are men from all over living in their parents' basements playing video games all day?  It's because there's really no place in our society for those with a Y chromosome.  In courtship, men don't really have much to offer women these days, while women still expect men to significantly improve their lives.  Simply put, women still expect just as much from men as they ever did, but men have much less ground to stand on.  Additionally, society continuously deprecates men, but still expects them to have plenty of confidence and no insecurities.  At no time is this more apparent than when you ask men to approach women in courtship.
• I'm not exactly what you'd call a typical Latter-day Saint male.  There are two common simple, objective metrics by which a young woman can evaluate her future spouse: RM status and the relationship he has with his mother.  I'm not eligible to go on a mission, and as you can image from the reading above, my relationship with my mother is strained.  In baseball, I'd have one more strike, but with many women, I don't.  Women have a lot of other things they're looking for in a spouse that might eliminate me from consideration, but these are the two most damning ones.
• Nature and nurture.  In addition to my mom skewing my views of women, I was born with a chemical predisposition to not be very aggressive.  This was combined with the fact that I was an only child and spent much of my time without the company of other people my age, making me not terribly outgoing, or excited to socialize with other people.

Boom goes the dynamite.

I hope that gives you a good idea of why I'm so pessimistic about my prospects for marriage.  In my mind these all fit together fairly easily, but I'm not sure that I totally managed to communicate what's going on in my brain.  I think you get a pretty good idea, though.

The Algorithm

In order to solidify one's place in nerd history, one has to make a few things part of his/her everyday life. One of these is to try to quantify just about anything, regardless of how effectively it can truly be quantified. Another of these is to have a dysfunctional dating life such that one would be just as inclined to stay at home on Saturday nights and play MMORPGs than socialize with the opposite sex.

So naturally, last Saturday night I was sitting around in my Animal House pajamas when I got a brilliant idea. I would make an algorithm to quantify what sort of women I'm attracted to. Could this actually be useful? Perhaps. While I was at BYU, I often ended up not going on dates because of the paradox of choice, among ...many... other things. The algorithm could give a hierarchy to queue, such that I might know who I should take out. I don't claim that it will actually work out that way, but at least it's a nice thought.

So, here it is:

R = 0 For S > B

where

and

A = Attractiveness

P = Subjective Physical Attractiveness on a 1-10 scale
IQ = Intelligence Quotient
σE = Deviation of Eccentricities
σEM = My Deviation of Eccentricities
T = Testimony Factor, 1-10 scale
C = Charity Factor, 1-10 scale
R = Responsibility Factor, 1-10 scale
B = Perception of Time Spent in Constructive Activity (B stands for 'Books'), Percent
Tw = Perception of Time Spent in Things that Look like Constructive Activity but Aren't (Tw stands for 'Twilight'), Percent
S = Perception of Time Spent in non-Constructive Activity (S stands for 'Shopping'), Percent
H = Humor Factor, 1-10 scale
FG = Pro 2nd Amendment, 1-10 scale
AR = Reciprocal Attraction, 1-10 scale

There are six separate pieces to this equation that all deserve to be looked at in more detail.

Emotional Stability, ES

The two sigma (σ) terms in the equation represent the number of standard deviations away from average the mental and emotional eccentricities of me and a prospective partner would be. In practice, this serves as the personality term of the equation. If I think that I and a prospective partner is way different from me, I could make the difference in sigma terms as high as 6, lowering the overall attractiveness. If I think that someone is similar to me in a way that would be conducive to a relationship, I could make the difference in sigmas zero, so that the 'Big 3' term wouldn't be divided up at all.

The Big 3 Parameter, 2P(IQ-70)/ES

The 'Big 3' represents the three points of most emphasis when looking for a date: looks, brains, and personality. This parameter can vary anywhere from 0 to 1200, making it approximately 46% of the equation.

The Spirituality Parameter, 8T*C

This parameter is a simple product of my perceptions of testimony and charity. I've expressed my desire to end up with a woman who has a testimony and who lives according to that testimony in the past. Any woman who's a member of the church will probably end up with at least 7s in both testimony and charity unless I know she's involved in sketchy activity. Variance of 0 to 800, 31% of the total.

The (Anal) Retentiveness Parameter, R(B-T-S)*H/25

Basically, I want a woman who's responsible, but knows how to laugh at things when they're funny. Through much of my life, I've noticed that there are often women who read and women who go shopping. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with shopping, I'm just making an analogy to priorities between something I find constructive, like reading and something I find mostly non-constructive, like shopping. In the world of books, there's also crap that looks good, but really isn't at its core, like Twilight. The same applies to life. As a side note, everyone needs to have non-constructive activity once in a while in order to remain sane. This isn't reflected in the equation and is one of its weaknesses. In order to keep the term from going negative (and thus punishing for humor) R is taken to zero when S exceeds B. I should also mention that this factor tends to not favor younger women, who don't look as responsible as their older counterparts, even though they could have been just as responsible at the same age. I considered using an age correction factor, but decided against it. Variance of 0-400, 15% of the total.

The Gun Factor, FG

I like firearms, and I wish everyone else did too. Especially for women in this day and age, knowledge of how to use a gun is a valuable tool that could save one's life. I have to bump down women who don't feel this way a notch, especially when their reasoning is something naïve like "Guns kill people." Variance of 0 to 100, 4% of the total.

Reciprocal Attraction, AR

People are generally more fond of people who like them. I'm not sure this needs any more explanation than that. Variance of 0 to 100, 4% of the total.

The theoretical total of this equation comes out to 2600 points, though that would be ridiculous, just like scoring a 0 would be ridiculous. Most women will probably come out to somewhere between 850 and 1750, though I don't know for sure because I haven't really tried it out much yet. However, I have tried it out, so here are some case studies.

Case Studies

The first evaluation is a woman (yes, she is real... as far as I know) who I find very attractive physically, mentally, and emotionally. This woman manages to remind me of my good qualities without really showing my bad ones. In short, she's a gem. We'll call this woman 'Exhibit B' for anonymity's sake.

Exhibit B

The next is of a woman who exemplifies the Everclean song, "Sweet Spirit" with tragic precision. She's a great person, but I could literally find nothing, from head to toe, that I found physically attractive about her, and trust me, I tried.

Sweet Spirit

This next one is a younger woman I met my senior year at BYU. She's weird, but in a similar way to me. She had great priorities and a sneaky sense of humor, though she ignored me about half the time, so I'm not sure how that would have worked out. We'll call her 'Princess Zelda.'

Princess Zelda

Now, I'm sure you'd love to know how fiancées 1 and 2 stack up. So here you go.

Fiancée #1 (Clearly thinking with the wrong head)

Fiancée #2 (Might have killed me in my sleep if we got married)

So that's how it works. As a footnote to this blag post, I'd like to mention that I developed this algorithm primarily with the goal of picking out dates and bringing order to the queue rather than picking a spouse. Personally, there's one big thing that's missing from this methodology that would be key to picking a spouse and that's sanity. The ES factor helps quantify it, but if fiancée #2 was to be truly rated on sanity, she's go from 1429 to -138 instantaneously. I like quantifying things, but I think picking the one should be a separate deal.

So here's to me (maybe) having a semi-functional relationship with women. Cheers!

Shawties

Since my future for the next year, or so, has been decided, I can now turn my blagging attention back to more philosophical topics. The last 18 months of job search and grad school blagging have been solid, but definitely not the most exciting topics I've ever written about.

Recently I've been thinking about women. I've found out that my mom is ready for grandchildren and has a specific desire for Asian ones, which explains why she's been telling me my soul mate is an Asian woman for years now. Yesterday, she even started making me a profile on the scourge on human existence know as match.com. Luckily I was able to change the password on that profile and delete it before any real damage was done. I tell you this so that you can understand why I've been thinking about women and romance over the past few days. It really has nothing else to do with this post.

The point of this blag post isn't to page Dr. Freud. Rather, I want to discuss a phenomenon that I'm a part of whether I really want to be or not. A little under a year ago, I went to an Independence Day barbeque with a good friend of mine (and cutie) Hannah with one of her friends who shall remain nameless. At some point during this event the Friend of Hannah made a comment something along the lines of, "I don't think tall guys should go out with short women, because tall guys should be for tall girls, you know?" I'm sure that I'm butchering that quote, but 11 months has taken its toll on the precision of my memory. As a side note, this was pretty awkward for Hannah and I since she stands at a petite 5'1" and I come in 13 inches taller at 6'2". I don't hold anything against Hannah's friend for her commentary, but I have to say at this juncture, that I disagree.

I've always found this whole concept to be fairly shallow. If I meet the woman of my dreams who meets every criterion on The List and more, you couldn't pay me to care whether she's 4'10" or 5'10". When it comes right down to it, height is just another physical characteristic that's much less important in the long term than things like personality, mutual interests, and reciprocal charity. A woman of below average height is just as capable as a woman of average or above average height of having these intrinsic characteristics. A certain amount of physical attraction is always important to a relationship, but it is nowhere close to the most important things. The only applicable downside of going out with a more petite woman that I can think of is that the mechanics of kissing are somewhat challenging. As long as there's a step around, it shouldn't be a problem.

Adding to this conundrum is the attitude that taller women usually take toward it. Most of the taller women that I've met seem to have a little bit of an entitlement mentality when it comes to taller men. Unfortunately for them, it all comes down to simple economics. Tall men are a scarce resource that most all women want, at least to a certain degree. The scarcity of this, or any other, resource causes the price of that resource to go up. In a simple economic model the consumer with the highest willingness to pay is the one who comes out with the scarce resource. Romantic relationships can rarely be explained fully by a simple economic model, but the principle holds true. The woman who wants the tall guy more will end up with him assuming approximate equality in physical and character traits among the women. In my experience, the more petite women have been willing to pay more than they taller women and have thus often end up with them. As a footnote to this paragraph let me say that the 'price' of a tall man can include a wide variety of things and not just what you're thinking. Get your mind out of the gutter. ;)

Since I've been talking a whole lot about women who are shorter than me, you might be interested to know how I feel about women who are taller than me. Most of the men that I know would not be comfortable dating a woman who was taller than them, and even fewer women would be comfortable dating a man who's shorter than them. Let me just say that, in my life (not just adult life, but my whole life), I've only met about 5 or 6 women who were taller than me, and only one or two of those were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just so we're clear, I'm taller than about 99.99% of American women. I'd estimate that there are about 18 women of that height who are single, active members of the church in the States. If any of those 18 women are interested in me, I will certainly reciprocate. However, in a pool of potentially millions of women, a number like 18 is something that my engineer friends would call "negligible." Basically, I'll cross that bridge if I ever come to it... which is unlikely.

So the moral of the story is that there can potentially be a wide variety of things that contribute to a man's interest in a woman, and height is almost never very high on the list. A short woman shouldn't be dissuaded from interest in a guy solely because he's significantly taller than her and tall women shouldn't take tall men for granted. As usual, this could just be me, but I think I'm pretty well-founded on this one.

Until next time, my friends.

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

About six months ago, I did a SWOT analysis of my life. In this analysis, I detailed what I thought my greatest weaknesses were at the time. In the mean time, I have put a finger on exactly what one of my greatest weaknesses is.

I realized this when I went to a graduate open house for Virginia Tech, one of my prospective graduate schools. During this open house, professors gave presentations about their current research and prospective students were encouraged to talk to them about it and ask them questions. The fact that current graduate students were passing out more beer than I had seen in one place in my life up to that point put me somewhat on edge. It was this slight discomfort in the situation that pushed me over the edge and allowed me to realize a greater source of anxiety and dread in this situation: that I was basically be told to go up to these professors and ask them for research money. I was absolutely paralyzed and realized that I could not be effective in this act, and this is my greatest weakness.

I feel incredible discomfort and anxiety when I ask anyone for anything.

To put it in microeconomic terms, there is nothing from which I get more utility than not having to ask people for things. In more practical terms, there is almost nothing in the world that's worth the anxiety of having to ask for it. I would and have passed up money, notoriety, help, and love because they would have to be asked for. In the case of the Virginia Tech open house, I was unable to approach professors with questions on their research, and along with it, a vastly increased possibility of going to a top-10 civil engineering school for essentially free because the anxiety I felt over asking for something outweighed even these great benefits.

Just in case you haven't made the connection yet, this is probably the best reason that I have been on a whopping 4 or 5 dates (depending on your definition of a date) in the last two years. Asking for dates and general companionship from women is and even greater stressor, because it compounds the anxiety I feel over asking for things with the fear that I have of ending up in a relationship like my parents'. Those who are really quick might be inclined to ask, "Well, weren't you engaged? Twice?" To you I say, "Well aren't you perceptive." Yes, I was engaged twice. However, both of these had flown pretty far over the cuckoo's nest. Far enough, in fact, that they were even willing to ask guys out. And that's how they started, both of them. This isn't to say that I've never asked a woman out; I have. Suffice it to say that these were not pleasant experiences for me and never progressed past that one date.

When I realized that I avoided asking for things because of the anxiety that I felt, I sought to know where this behavior came from. With only a little self-awareness I was able to identify the cause: Operant Conditioning. In this blag, I've placed the blame for many of my emotional issues on my mother. However, both of my parents can share the responsibility for this one. Since my mom spent money like a drunken sailor on a three day pass, it was in my dad's best interest to prevent her from spending as much money as he possibly could. My dad, thus, punished me every time that I asked for something that cost money. I don't know about you, but when I was five, everything that I wanted cost money. I don't remember what most of the punishments were, but I distinctly remember my dad saying, "Boy, every time you say 'I want,' I'm gonna beat your @$$." Granted, he didn't actually beat my @$$ all that often, but that phrase definitely stuck with me. I learned to simply not ask for things.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea how I would overcome all the years of learning that I have experienced. I can tell you one thing: I certainly won't be asking for help any time soon.

Don't Confuse the Three

Over my about 22.5 years of life so far, I've gained some wisdom that I wish everyone, especially those in my age range, understood. This wisdom is a knowledge of the segmentation of and difference between three oft-confused things: Love, Lust, and Infatuation. In the US, we often add the meaning of latter two in the first. Like any word or words in English or other languages, the definitions of these can vary depending on who you ask and the context of the statement in which the word is used. There's a whole field of people who don't make any money as they study semantics. There are often no clean cut, concrete definitions for words and when there are, the definitions are always changing. Regardless of how you define the three words listed above, I have gained some insight into three phenomena of human interpersonal relationships that I have labeled as Love, Lust, and Infatuation, and I would encourage anyone who reads this to understand them and, at least in general, refer to them as such.

Much of my insight into these three interpersonal phenomena has come through my study of religion and religious texts. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and my knowledge of these three things is irreversibly tied to my membership in this church and to my faith. I will refer to scriptural passages and to principles of the Gospel of Christ inasmuch as they have helped me learn about phenomena of human behavior.

Infatuation

Infatuation, as I know it, is an intense desire to be with a person to whom one is physically or emotionally attracted. In contemporary America, we often say things like "falling in love," when we refer to infatuation. This phenomena can be either one or two-sided; one person can be infatuated with another either with or without reciprocation. When infatuation is reciprocated, it often results in a passionate, whirlwind relationship. The sad truth that we all must face is that infatuation, no matter how fervent, is temporary. No matter how much we think we care for someone or how "in love" we may be, the infatuation will always burn out. Sociologists have studied the phenomenon of infatuation and have found that it generally lasts, at most, two years. Regardless of who is involved, the intense feeling of attraction of one person to another will usually die out within two years time. The important part is what we decide to do after that time.

Allow me to say, as a disclaimer, that I believe in the principles of evolution and the principles of creation and I do not believe that these two are mutually exclusive. You can disagree, and that's just fine with me. That being said, I will get on with my point. Evolutionary biologists tell us that infatuation developed in humans in order to increase our reproductive output. In other words, if we didn't fall into an intense attraction for another person we wouldn't reproduce nearly as much. The genes that inhibit infatuation have been naturally deselected, in a manner of speaking. I would just add that the God of heaven created us with a propensity for infatuation so that we would want to get married and fulfill that aspect of His eternal plan. If we were really thinking about what marriage would be like instead of idealizing it through the rose-colored glasses of infatuation, I get the feeling that there would be drastically fewer marriages.

Infatuation is important, but it is even more important to recognize it and to recognize when it has faded and how one should proceed.

Lust

Paul the apostle used the word "lust" in many of his letters to various Eurasian churches in his day. The use of this word was often in reference to sexual desire and the expression thereof. This meaning of the word persists today such that it is almost used interchangeably with sexual desire. However, I propose a broader definition that encompasses more than just sexual lust. Lust is, at its core, selfishness. I would describe lust as a desire for something whether concrete or intangible such that one is willing to sacrifice the well being of others. In the case of sexual lust, one is desirous to engage in sexual behaviors for the sole purpose of satisfying his or her desire, without regard to the desires and welfare of others involved. Merely harboring these desires is enough to constitute lust and acting on them involves a greater degree of lust. I believe that lust, in general, should be essentially synonymous with selfishness and greed. Putting your own desires before those of others is at the heart of lust.

The best example of lust is that of Lucifer in the premortal life as far as Latter-day Saints understand it. In the grand council of heaven, the plan of salvation, which we are living, was presented before the children of God. In this plan, the children of God would have to choice to follow him and to be redeemed by Christ, or not. Lucifer, who is Satan rebelled against God, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, are surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." Moses 4:1. It is common amongst Latter-day Saints to suppose that Satan's plan would have forced humanity to do good. I believe, however, that this was actually one in which there was no law and thus all would be saved by default and in which none would be able to progress. Satan so desired the glory and honor of God that he was willing to sacrifice the eternal welfare of all the children of God to get it. This is the most profound example of lust that can be found.

Love

Love is the opposite of lust and selfishness and can thus be characterized as selflessness or giving. Paul used the word "charity" to describe how the saints should treat others. Said he, "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, it is not puffed up." 1 Cor 13:4. In this context, the word "charity" could and should be interchanged with "love." Love, in its purest form, is the state of being willing to make personal sacrifices on behalf of another.

In his book, "The Five Love Languages," Dr. Gary Chapman reveals that there are essentially five ways that a person can feel loved by another. These are the five love languages. In this book, Dr. Chapman emphasizes that it is important to speak your spouse's love language, even and especially, if it not your own. Regardless of how big or small the sacrifice might be, Dr. Chapman emphasizes that it is important to make sacrifices in order to make one's spouse feel love. He also states that it is impossible to force someone to love you, everyone has the freedom to choose whether they will make some sacrifice on behalf of others or not.

The premier example of love is, of course, the Savior, Jesus Christ. Because he desired our eternal welfare, he suffered beyond all mortal comprehension and willingly died. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that all mankind could return to God and become His disciples. The well-known scripture John 3:16 truly shows what love is and should be.

Earlier in this post, I said that it is important to know what one should do in a reciprocal relationship after the infatuation has worn off. What you should do, if you haven't already, is to love. When the infatuation wears off, you should be prepared to make sacrifices on behalf of your partner/spouse so that he or she can feel loved by you. Even better, you should get in the habit of making sacrifices while the infatuation is still there, before they even begin to feel like sacrifices. God has also commanded us that we should love everyone, not just our significant others. It is important for all of us to show love to everyone who we meet, whether we'd trust them with our children, or not. I don't know this from experience and I have never really done it myself, but I do know that this is the way that God has prepared for His children to be happy.

Shotgun Approach

I've decided that, instead of trying to dedicate an individual blag entry to each of things that I have floating, or dancing, or screaming in my head, I'd just say a couple of things about each of them.

• I graduated from BYU. After enduring through countless hours, tests, and erasures... and being subjected to the sadism of BYU Math and BYU Poli Sci, I'm finally done.
• GPA's: Overall - 3.54, Generals w/ Religion - 3.56, Generals w/o Religion - 3.40, Civil Engineering - 3.53, Management Minor - 3.80.
• If BYU ever posts my degree to my transcripts, I will be unemployed. Technically, you don't count as unemployed until you're out of school. However, I've felt pretty unemployed for the past 4 months.
• I actually have a job interview on Thursday for a job in Babylon. After 8 months of carefully placing resumes around the country, I finally got an actual interview.
• The job doesn't pay what I wish it did, but it would be at least somewhat related to my area of study and it would by far superior to nothing. It's for a construction materials testing technician. Basically, I would make concrete cylinders and break them according to ASTM and AASHTO standards.
• I could appreciate finding a job in Utah. I mean, I did leave BYU without a ring, after all. Between the girls and the friends I have in Happy Valley, I'd like the opportunity to work and to continue living in Utah.
• I've had the song, "Paint with All the Colors of the Wind" from the movie Pocahontas stuck in my head for the last 6 days. It all started when I heard Candace Shields sing in sacrament meeting. Her voice reminded me of Pocahontas, and now that I don't really have much in the way of responsibility or business, the song has been stuck in my head.
• Once I actually get a job, I'll actually get a car for the first time in my life. There are many ways that I want to be like Jesus, however walking everywhere I go isn't one of them. My dad and I have been talking about getting a brand new Chevrolet Cobalt. :D
• I've decided that, if I get a Ph.D. I want to get it from Georgia Tech... mostly just because I want to sing their wicked-cool fight song at a football game.
• At some point here soon, I'm going to make a poster to parody the BYU BGS poster that asks, "Leave BYU Without a Degree?" by replacing the word 'Degree' with 'Spouse.'
• I've decided that I want to name my firstborn son, 'Scott Manning,' not only after the legit rockstar Scott Manning, but also in honor of the man who came up with arguably the most useful and most controversial relationship in fluid mechanics, Osbourne Manning.
• I kind of want to change my middle name to, 'The Hands,' or 'μαλάκα,' or 'τα χέρια.'

That should pretty much do it. Now for the Georgia Tech fight song, a clear beacon of morality in these latter days :P

A Little Too [Personal]

Tonight as I was perusing through Yahoo!'s "News" (very little of which is actual news) I found This Article. I found the parody of a personal ad at the beginning to be H-I-larious. I will now prepare my own "checklist" parody for both your and my amusement:

Me: 21. 6'2", 220 lbs. Hanging around the Provo area for now, but looking forward to big things (and by things, I mean money) in the very near future from my prospective employment as a civil engineer.
You: 18-23, BYU graduate or prospective MRS. Maximum 5'11" and BMI 18.5-22.5. Member of the church, but not an RM. Able to show knowledge of US federal and state policies and provide documentation of voting in at least the last even-yeared election. A second amendment sister. Major: Biology, Exercise Science, Business (not Accounting), Communication Disorders, French, or Rec Management. Education majors must complete an exam demonstrating that they can "do" as opposed to only being able to "teach." Hobbies: Italian-style cooking, video games, motorcycling, fencing, and chess. Well informed in the topics of: American sports, muscle cars, Dilbert cartoon strips, contemporary science fiction, and classic '80s cinema. Poorly informed (except in the cases of mockery) in the topics of: Vampire romance novels, Britney Spears music, Schmoop Dogg (aka Adam Nicoll), The Princess Bride, ballroom dancing, and cooking with tofu. Equally comfortable wearing 6" heals and plain white tennis shoes.
If interested, please send introductory email with appropriate documentation and a full-body photo. Please also send, as soon as possible, (3) letters of recommendation ( 1 academic, 1 ecclesiastical, and 1 from moderately close male friend). Plus (2) 1000-or-less-word essays on the following topics: "How I know my parents love(d) me", and "The University of Utah Sucks because..."

Yeah, I think that should pretty much do it. If I ever met a woman like this, she would never be interested in me because: 1. I would crap my pants upon meeting her, leaving a very bad impression, and 2. Unless she was 18, and fresh out of high school, she'd already be married, which means that 3. She would definitely not be using online dating sites. The thing that I most take away from this blag is that I need to blag about BMI... :D

y = e^-x

Disclaimer: The following blag post contains both intermediate mathematics and references to my relationships with women. In fact, this blag post contains little else. Reader discretion is advised.

As the enginerd that I am, I often try to model things mathematically. Since my experience with BYU math, I haven't been as much, but I still do occasionally. Recently I've decided that I should try to model my experience with women over my life mathematically. Therefore, this post is directed mostly at my nerd friends.

Over my life, I figure that my optimism toward women is inversely proportional to my social exposure to them. I say social because, as my friend F@$$w@$$ pointed out, exposure can mean more than one thing. Anywho, as I get to know women in general better and better, my optimism toward them tends to fall. I figure that, at birth, I had a higher optimism for women than in any other context, being perfectly naïve. As my society with women increases, I feel less and less affinity for them. I figure that the decline in optimism would be sharp at first, as I was first introduced to women, and then would flatten out as the exposure to women affected me less and less. I don't honestly think that my optimism toward women would ever actually reach zero, but would come progressively closer to it.

Any curve that would be used to model my relationships with women would therefore need to be horizontally asymptotic to zero. Two equations immediately come to mind when discussing things that are horizontally asymptotic to zero:

y = 1/x OR y = e^-x

I considered y = 1/x for about 10 seconds, but upon remembering that it is also vertically asymptotic to zero quenched that thought. Since this function is vertically asymptotic to zero, it would insinuate that my optimism toward women was necessarily infinite at birth. Considering that infants are innocent in the sight of God, this is possible and even fairly likely. However, considering that neither I neither anyone I know can remember much of their condition at birth, I'll say that this assumption is unnecessary and off-base. I'd rather model my relationships with women as a percentage of the maximum possible optimism. Since y = e^-x has y-intercept of 1 this works perfectly.

So, for the function y = e^-x, the abscissa (x) would be my social exposure to women, and the ordinate (y) would be my optimism toward women as a proportion of the maximum possible. At time t=0, my exposure to women would also be zero and therefore my optimism toward them would be 1, or the maximum possible. As time progresses and my exposure to women increases and therefore my optimism toward them decreases. Naturally, there will be sometimes when my optimism toward women will be higher and some times when it will be lower, but as a general rule, there will be a downward, asymptotic trend.

So, if anyone has the need to know how my relationships with women are going, they really only need to refer to this post. As my time with and therefore my social exposure to women increases, my optimism toward women will only decrease as a general rule. If there's ever a marriage event, there will probably be another phase of the curve which will temporarily spike the curve upward, and then bring in back down to be asymptotic to zero. However, such an event would be unlikely, and the very existence of the y = e^-x relationship would almost preclude it altogether. If it did, I would need to remodel the curve, but would probably only cross that bridge when I came to it.

Irony

NEWSFLASH: For anyone who doesn't know me very well or just hasn't just put 2 and 2 together yet, I'm not an RM (Gasp!). I did not serve a full-time, proselyting mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I was 18.75 years old, I submitted "papers," though most of them are electronic, to serve a mission. On the 22nd of April 2007, my branch president at the time called me into his office and told me that I would not be serving a mission for the church, and thus my zeal for missionary work died. However this is not the point of this blag post, it just gives a more full context...

The real point of this post is to help shed some light on the irony of my relationships with women since that fateful day in April. As most Mormons will tell you, according to Mormon culture, it is essentially a prerequisite for a man to be an RM before any young woman will be willing to marry him. While this is not a part of Mormon doctrine, nor is it universally true in Mormon culture, I seem to gain a stronger testimony of this principle daily.

The real irony of my not having served a mission is that I seemed to be much more popular with women during the two years that I should have been on a mission than I ever was before or have been in the year or so since my theoretical mission would have ended. In order to quantify these claims, here are some statistics that I've compiled for the 24 months I theoretically should have been on a mission and for the times both before and after:

From July 2007 to July 2009 (Theoretical mission timeframe):

• Fiancées: 2
• Months in a relationship: 17
• Percentage of time spent in a relationship: 71%
• Kisses: Countless
• GPA: 3.41

Before July 2007 AND after July 2009:

• Dates: 8-10, depending on your definition of a date
• Time in a relationship: 0
• Kisses: 0
• GPA: 3.62

Wow, this is even more depressing now that it's in print. Anywho, I must acknowledge a few things before I move on. I must acknowledge that the women with whom I was in relationships for these two years were, more or less, complete psychopaths, who should have caused me to preparing by looking for the nearest emergency exit, being aware that it might be behind me. Additionally, I've included my college GPA during the time periods in question as a reference to how distracted I was by other things. While this isn't actually that good of a measure in this case, there is actually a significant difference between the two.

Overall, it just seems like I took a two-year hiatus from being an awkward, antisocial nerd and have now picked up where I left off. The only real differences between the pre-mission me and the non-mission me is that now I have less hope for the future and no car.

These things being said, there's only really one way to end this post:

Tracting

My relationships with women have always been awkward... that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. But some of the encounters I have with the opposite gender genuinely qualify as mega-awkward. Once again, I've found that I've fallen victim to what I like to call the, "Day Late and a Dollar Short Phenomenon." Just let me give you a typical conversation involving Day Late and a Dollar Short:

Me: "So [Random Woman], I have two tickets to [insert event here], would you like to come with me?"
Random Woman: "Oh, that's really sweet of you, and I'm really flattered, and I'd totally go, but I'm actually going out with someone else right now."
Me: "Oh, well on your facebook profile it says that you're single."
RW: "Yeah, I should really change that."
Me: "Yeah. So, how long have you been with this guy?"
RW: "Uh, about 3 days."
Me: Holy $h17!!! "Well that's cool, good for you."
RW: "Thanks, good luck finding someone..."

And this isn't an isolated incident. It's happened at least 4 times, essentially the same way... one woman actually married the guy she was going out with. Sometimes I wonder if I'm only attracted to women who are producing pheromones, but just don't realize it until a week later than most men... it's not entirely out of the question. Ironically all of these instances occurred when I was trying to find a date to a specific event... all of them events that required tickets. So, in the end I am eventually relegated to knocking on the doors of random women in my ward looking for someone to go with me. I am quite literally tracting for dates...

Thank You Dr. Chapman

As anyone who reads my blag should know, I took a class in LDS Marriage and Family last semester, (I mean I only wrote 3 posts about my classes.) During this class, I was exposed to a book called "The Five Languages of Love," by Dr. Gary Chapman. After hearing about this book in class, I knew I wanted to learn more about Dr. Chapman's theories on love and relationships, so I visited his website and bought his book. Well, now I've more or less finished that book and I'd like to share a few things that I've learned about myself and my relationships with people after reading it. The rest of this post will be written assuming you have some familiarity with the book and its concepts. If you're not familiar with it, feel free to visit the link above.

Things I've learned from reading this book:

1. My love language is definitely physical touch.

There's really nothing that speaks love to me like a good hug or other appropriate touching. I'd probably fall for just about any woman (reserving veto power) who reaches out and touches me. I also feel a certain amount of love from words of affirmation or quality time, but those pale in comparison to the love I can feel through physical touch.

2. Just because you feel loved doesn't mean she's "the one."

After reading this book, I realized why I fell for both of my ex-fiancées. And yes, I've been engaged twice before, talk to me privately if you really want more details. Both of these women were "touchy feely" women who really enjoyed hugs and kisses and the like. In retrospect, I think both of their primary love languages were physical touch as well, which often works out well except... Both of these women also had emotional issues that probably should have left me running fast and far yelling, "Get away from me psycho!" all the way.

3. There's a reason my love language is physical touch.

In Dr. Chapman's book, he says that we often learn our primary love language from our parents and how they love us. When I first heard this, I thought it was strange, because I really don't think my parents touched me or each other all that often while I was growing up. However, after I thought about it for a while, I realized that physical touch was really the only way that my parents expressed love to me while I was growing up, even though there wasn't that much of it going around. There were certainly no words of affirmation or acts of service going around. We gave gifts, but this was usually accompanied by, "D@mM!+ Charlotte! How much did you spend on this $h1+!" We also had quality time, as Dr. Chapman defines it, though it was usually accompanied by, "D@mM!+ Gary, you're an ephing Pr1ck, I hate your guts!" Though there wasn't a lot of touching, it was the only way that love was really expressed in my home growing up.

4. My dating habits (and lack thereof) have an emotional root.

When a man is taking a woman (especially a Mormon woman) on a first date, there are some things that would be totally appropriate, and some things that just wouldn't. For example, it would be perfectly appropriate for a man to tell his date that she looks pretty, to open a door for her, or to bring her a gift of some sort. Inasmuch as the date itself is quality time, this pretty much covers the first 4 love languages. Would be appropriate, on a first date, to take your date in a swift embrace, and kiss her? In some cases it might, but for the most part, no. People (especially Mormon people) tend to establish that physical touch necessarily implies a continuing commitment. I understand the reasoning behind this, but that really doesn't help me. What it really comes down to is that I have a really hard time feeling any degree of love on first, second, third, etc. dates because it's just not socially acceptable to express love in my language that early in a relationship. And without that emotional connection, dating becomes little more than a hassle and a burden.

5. It is important for me to know that I am loved, even if I don't feel it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, The One You Wish Was the One, I often have a morbidly obese shoulder devil yelling in my ear, saying that no one will ever love me. I genuinely believe that this is because I don't often feel loved since people are usually reluctant to touch me. Though I often feel as if no one really cares about me, I've been able to realize that there are diverse ways of expressing love, and have been able to recognize people's sincere efforts to express their love for me. I also have better come to realize that there is an Eternal God in Heaven who loves me and wants the best for me. Even though it will be a long time before I can touch Him, I know that my eternal soul is of great worth in His sight.

PS-I hope this post wasn't too squishy or emo for anyone... That's not really how I was trying to come off. :)

The Perfect Storm... of Dating

Recently I've been pondering the lack of any real of meaningful communication with the opposite sex which has seemed to be an ever-present part of my life as of late. There are many fairly obvious reasons for this. One is that I see about five times as many men as women on any given day. Another is that my mother's paranoia over... virtually everything has lead to a certain distrust of people in general, but mostly of women. Yet I've found that there is a very simple set of factors which acts as a barrier between myself and any person who I'd want to meet, but most especially those of the female persuasion.

This simple barrier, is actually a combination of three even simpler concepts which form a "Perfect Storm," if you will, of communication barrier. The first element of this 1-2...3 punch is the fact that I'm part Indian (feather, not dot). It's not that women who I meet are necessarily racist in any way, but the fact that I'm part Indian gives me somewhat of a somber facial expression. I like to call it the "disapproving scowl." I have to consistently tell people that I'm indeed not angry or sad, but when I relax my face, I just look like I am. This "disapproving scowl" tends to intimidate most everyone who doesn't know me very well, but especially those of the "fairer" sex.

The second concepts operates along the same lines and has similar pretenses to the first. I think it's safe to say that I am quite large in stature. At 6'2" and 220 (or so) pounds I'm by no stretch a small person. This gives me the appearance that I could easily knock your lights out if I was so inclined... and the disapproving scowl from part 1 gives me the air of being so inclined. The combination of these two alone would be somewhat of a disadvantage, but could be easily remedied given the proper attributes.

Sadly, I do not currently possess said attributes. The primary attribute of which I am thinking is that of being outgoing. The first two obstacles would not be too difficult to overcome if the man who had them also possessed an ability to make small-talk with anyone and everyone he meets, as well as the inclination to do it. I, on the other hand, am not found in possession of such personality traits. I tend to be a fairly shy person who is slow to "warm up" to people. I also really don't respond that well to pressure. When I know that the remainder of my natural life as well as any life to be hoped for afterward is on the line, I'm not incredibly likely to perform all that well.

All this adds up to give me the air of a guy who looks big, angry, standoffish and disinterested. Anyone who knows me knows that that's not really who I am. I'm actually a really mellow and approachable guy if you'll give me the time to get to know you. I'm not entirely sure what the final solution to my dating perfect storm is, but I'm pretty sure I'll make it through to the end.