You remember back when you were in school. Everyone wanted to be “liked” by everyone else. In fact, even the word “like”, implies a connection between sameness and affection. No to mention that when you’re a teenager, to be like someone is often a prerequisite for being liked by that person.

There were, of course, different ways to conform and court popularity. You could play up an inherent trait and look for people with similar qualities. Funny people might end up in the Drama club, physically strong people might come together in the Weight-lifting club, fearless craziness could get you in with the Rock climbers, and people with an aptitude for argument or ideas would get drawn together into Debate or Science clubs… Or you could meld yourself to a social clique based on shared interests: Punks, Goths, Arties, Geeks or Stoners, etc. You could even conform to a group of people who specialized in not seeming to care about conforming. They were the “Cool” kids. Yet you didn’t just mould yourself to other people’s interests, talents, or skills. You used your own interests, talents, and skills to gravitate toward – or to even attract – people who shared them. And, out of the conformist cliques based on some type of talent or skill would come the perfection of that talent or skill.

Next came work, and accomplishment, and rewards; all of which reduced the pressure to conform almost to the point where it didn’t exist. You conformed along the lines of who you were and what you did best, and after a short while your substance as an individual replaced the need to conform. The singularity of your personality and your achievements attracted people even more than your reassuring resemblance to them did. You became an adult.

However, there was always one type of person that didn’t belong to any particular group. He belonged to every group. He (or even she) didn’t gravitate toward a clique based on a shared interest, or talent, or skill. He gravitated toward any clique that would have him.

He could be the “class clown” who ingratiated himself at the price of his dignity; or the kid that vandalized bus shelters, or caused outrage in order to please. Or she was the “easy” girl. Such a person didn’t appeal to others on the basis of a quality that they shared with them, or a quality which was also the essence of an activity that did not belong to everyone: athletic prowess, dramatic skill, intellectual capacity, etc. Such a person divorced popularity from identity, and from the kind of accomplishment that might boost self-esteem and strengthen identity. He transformed his very self – not his interests, talents, or skills, his self – into a product that he tailored to fit the needs of others. For this type of person, there was no such thing as other people to try to relate to. There was only an audience to try to please.

Therefore, in your quest to have a better, more fulfilling sex life, avoid this type of “universal personality”, which plays to the lowest common denominator.

The person who will do anything to be popular is the most basic kind of person, since he depends only on his ability to become like other people, rather than on some personal talent that might make him superior to other people.

Posted by Jonathan as Philosophy, Sociology at 2:28 AM GMT

No Comments »

If you want to extract a woman’s phone number, then picking the right soundtrack for the attempt will significantly increase your chances of scoring.

That’s according to French psychologists, who found that an “average-looking man” doubled his chances of success when the object of his desire had been softened up with a “romantic ballad”, as opposed to a “neutral” ditty.

A team from the University of southern Brittany and the University of southern Paris tried out their chat-up line on 87 female volunteers aged 18 to 20.

They first spent five minutes in a waiting room listening either to Je L’aime a Mourir (I Love Her to Death) by Francis Cabrel, or L’heure du The (Time For Tea) by Vincent Delerm.

Thinking they were taking part in a consumer survey, they then moved to a different room to “discuss the difference between two types of biscuit with the 20-year-old man”.

After the pair had chewed over the comparative merits of the biscuits, the man pitched:

My name is Antoine, as you know. I think you are very nice and I was wondering if you would give me your phone number. I’ll phone you later and we can have a drink together somewhere next week.

The researchers asked Antoine to “to gaze and smile at the participant” while she mulled her response.

The result was that 52.2 per cent of those who’d been wooed with Je L’aime a Mourir agreed to the liaison, compared to just 27.9 per cent who’d been offered L’heure du The.

The scientists conclude in the journal Psychology of Music:

It was found that women previously exposed to romantic lyrics complied with the request more readily than women exposed to the neutral ones. The difference was significant. If you’re having trouble getting a date, picking the right soundtrack could improve the odds.

And in case men out there think it’s just women who can be manipulated by mush music, the researchers previously demonstrated that “men spent more money in florists when romantic music was being played“.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 1:30 AM GMT

No Comments »