
She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/shell-text-me-shell-text-me-not
======
rtl49
I've read a few comments deriding the complexity of this analysis. However, I
think it is worth identifying it as a fact that, noticed or not, there is
something of a power struggle in the early stages of the human courtship
ritual.

Here, this issue is that of availability. Given that it is sometimes difficult
to gauge the desirability of a prospective partner, one metric is how eager
they seem to be. If the other replies quickly, this is an indication that they
are quite eager, which suggests that they have few encounters, and that
therefore few have evaluated this person as attractive. On the contrary, a bit
of a lapse before a response suggests that the other feels a bit of
indifference toward you, and that therefore the person is likely to have more
encounters, and therefore is considered more attractive.

You can be forgiven for wishing for more simplicity, given that relationships
in most media are depicted rather one-dimensionally, as the result of
unambiguous and mutual attraction. This is not how it tends to work in the
real world.

~~~
stuxnet79
I used to respond immediately because I'm not a fan of playing games but now I
never do, mostly because nobody else does it either. But that is only when I
text. I NEVER text these days. I'd rather call. I'm impatient and I'd rather
have a short quick conversation than one uncomfortable one that stretches over
days.

You can easily spot the fakers from the ones who are actually unavailable
though. My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she
was unemployed and had nothing going in her life, whereas I had super busy
professors in big labs who for some reason respected my time enough to get
back to me within 24 hours or 48 hours at most.

~~~
philh
> My ex before we broke up used to take days and days to respond but she was
> unemployed and had nothing going in her life

Not to speak of your ex specifically. But this could just be a case of "shitty
at replying to texts", which I also have (in relation to my mother and some of
my friends, but not to other friends or my girlfriend). It's not necessarily
about being a faker.

~~~
stuxnet79
Not really, depending on what type of text it was she'd reply instantaneously.
Also, honestly in this day and age is it really appropriate to take at minimum
4 days to respond to a question from your "significant other"? That is not
normal. Everyone is always on their phone, like she was. In any case,
regardless of whether she was faking it or not, it's difficult to maintain a
relationship with someone who is always either unavailable or unreliable.
Eventually I start to mimic their stiffness despite how well intentioned I may
be and how petty I may think my actions are.

~~~
Jtsummers
> Also, honestly in this day and age is it really appropriate to take at
> minimum 4 days to respond to a question from your _" significant other"_?
> That is not normal. [emphasis added]

This is the real problem. Once you're dating someone (that is, it's past the
courtship part and you've acknowledged the relationship), if you can't check
your communication devices at least once or twice a day for messages from them
(excluding hectic work/life schedules), there's a problem. You're continuing
the game from courtship, you don't respect them, or you aren't actually into
the relationship.

EDIT: Added 'once or '. I realize this is a YMMV moment, but even if you don't
carry your phone during the day (like me), you can check it when you wake up
and before bed. And if you're interested/invested in someone, you've got to
make more time than that or there's never an actual conversation.

~~~
cableshaft
I once dated a girl who had two jobs and a kid. I frequently wouldn't get
responses back for days. I tried to keep it going, but it fell apart after
four months of one date every two or three weeks. In retrospect, I'm glad it
did end, even though I was super into her.

------
rtl49
Why wouldn't one just call and avoid all this nonsense? It doesn't eliminate
the wiles and ways by which we seek to gain the upper hand in a sapling
relationship, but it does introduce a touch of humanity into the exchange
which, in addition to being consoling, reduces wasted time and useless stress.

A call is an unambiguous yet still unstated expression of continued interest.
Is the other party still interested? If the call is answered, you can tell
from the tone of voice alone, and if there's uncertainty, the sound of your
voice may be enough to tip the balance. What's better, broaching the difficult
questions is less difficult on the phone: you don't need to ask explicitly
what you would in text, nor need you come up with some lame quip or foist one
of your few common experiences to have a conversation. If there's no answer,
leave a message -- at the very least, you're not likely to be ignored.

This approach has the added benefit of distinguishing yourself from your
texting, cowardly competitors.

Neither method is as good as a face-to-face encounter, but at least this way
you reduce the risk of miscommunication or one of those alienating situations
where the next-day text goes unanswered.

~~~
greggman
You are probably right but in general ever since texting became a thing I neve
call anyone anymore until after I've texted. I don't mean dates I mean
everyone. I know this is not objective, I grew up without texts and used to
call people all the time. Now though it just seems rude. I might be
interrupting, they might be busy, it might be the worst possible time to call,
maybe they're driving, maybe they're in a movie and forgot to turn off their
phone. With that kind of thinking in my head it feels rude. I first text, ask
if it's a good time to call, call.

~~~
rtl49
I think this approach would reduce one's probability of a successful outcome.
It may actually be preferable that the call be somewhat unexpected, because
receiving a call, particularly at this point in history, is a bit disarming.

~~~
greggman
You could be right on that. My feeling is either they're interested or they're
not. If they are interesting they'll be happy to hear from me. If they're not
I'm not interested in trying to change their mind.

------
physcab
When I first met my fiance a few years ago, I had been on my 40ish online date
and she her 3rd. I had all these rules about gauging girls' interest, mostly
to protect myself from pain of rejection. Wait a day or two, text, not more
than 2 lines, wait for a few hours, if no response, remove number promptly
from phone. After every successful date, I sent my fiance a text asking her
out again or to make small talk and I would get a response back anywhere from
9 hours to 24 hours and sometimes up to 48 hours later. The joke I tell people
about our early courtship is that I deleted my fiance's number 10 times. Once
I decided that her unpredictable texting shouldn't be a dealbreaker, life got
much easier. After a while I just accepted that she's a horrible texter, and
still remains one to this day.

Some people just aren't big on technology, as crazy as that sounds. My fiance
doesn't work in tech, doesn't have a laptop, barely uses her phone. In fact,
its one of the things I have come to love about her because it has helped me
detach and be more mindful.

------
k__
The best time to search for funding is when you don't need it.

The best time to search for a job is when you don't need it.

The best time to search for a partner is when you don't need it.

I got my current girlfriends after two years of being single and realizing
that being single is okay.

~~~
the_af
Do your current girlfriends know about each other? :P

~~~
Lawtonfogle
The secret is letting them both know they are the one you are cheating with,
not the one you are cheating on.

~~~
k__
Interesting idea. But no, they know of each other. No probs.

------
ktxt
I met about 400+ girls last summer and I became very good at texting.

Rule #1, never get mad or upset at them by text. Ever.

Rule #2, never appear weak or unsure. Never qualify what you say.

Rule #3, girls 99% of the time respond but people get busy. Sometimes I want
to respond to a text but I want my mind to be more clear or I get distracted.
Or you just don't feel so social. Or you are depressed, sick, busy etc. Some
are in school and working. Some have boyfriends.

Sometimes girls don't respond until the next day and occasionally they don't
respond at all. But then just wait and in 1 or 2 weeks, send a friendly photo,
casually invite them to an invite or say a funny joke or observation.

People get busy and a lack of response means nothing.

Also I like to invite them places or tell them what I am doing. But going out
is a lot of energy and money. And some don't like crowds.

So at some point, you should be direct, or ask them on a proper date or what
not. But never confide via text how much you like someone, unless you already
hooked up.

And sometimes I'll send a dangerous text, like I told this girl to call me
whenever she felt like being "dirty" with a bit of provocative language. She
did not respond to it. But she responded and I just push forward. Never look
back, never apologize (generally speaking).

There is no such thing as a friend zone. You can be just friends but
occassionally flirt and don't diminish yourself as a sexual being. Lack
confidence? Work out, take a class.

And if you don't look like Brad Pitt or aren't noticeably rich, the girls
might not stumble over each other to get to you.

But you can get them. Girls don't know what they want, they are easily
persuaded and lazy. (This goes for all people.)

~~~
Kiro
Sorry but 400? What?

~~~
ktxt
I meant to clarify. I volunteered at a hostel this summer doing activities. So
every morning I had to talk to girls at breakfast and invite them to hikes or
beer pong.

I also met a dozen girls or so girls a week out in LA. I was going out almost
every day and night though.

I also had a friend with a ridiculously amazing condo so I'd bring girls
there. The condo didn't help that much but the confidence probably did.

Even with all this, it was exhausting and annoying to meet girls. 99% seem
uninteresting and mean; only text me to invite them somewhere. And I was just
friends with most.

I'm somewhat of a misanthrope. People in general are selfish and weird.
Accepting people as flawed creatures and focusing on the positives have helped
a lot.

Edit- Travelling and staying in hostels rejuvenated my faith in others. I
highly recommend it.

------
acheron
Yeesh. Finding a girlfriend in college and getting married not too long after
graduation remains the best decision I've ever made. I don't know how people
deal with this shit.

~~~
CaptSpify
I'm in the same boat, but it depends on who you are as a person. As stressful
as dating can be, I can see the appeal vs being tied down. Some people even
love the stress.

I _love_ being married, but some of my friends would be miserable if they
were. To each their own!

~~~
acheron
Oh sure. Obviously it works for some people. I'm just saying I don't
understand it. :)

------
gelraen
1) for me one of the merits of text communication is that it's asynchronous:
there is a space to delay message processing for as long as recipient needs.
Setting yourself to expect immediate response under such circumstances is
bound to cause frustration.

2) intentionally delaying the response just for the sake of making yourself
more desirable sounds very manipulative to me, and I'd be very inclined to
stop pursuing emotional connection with person who does this.

------
cousin_it
Waiting for a particular person's attention is like overeating: it made sense
in hunter-gatherer tribes, but it's not the best idea in modern cities.

------
throwaway19238
Sorry this is a bit of an un-HN comment

> A few months later I ran into Tanya. We had a lot of fun together and she
> eventually told me that she was sorry she didn’t get back to me that time.
> Apparently at the time she was questioning her entire sexual identity and
> was trying to figure out if she was a lesbian.

I had this, but slightly different, from the other side recently. Met this
great girl, got on really well, talked on Facebook for weeks, there was
definitely some of this "How long should I wait?" going on. But, unfortunately
for her this coincided with me questioning my gender. As time was going on
things were progressing well with her, but it felt more and more like I was
lying to her and leading her on. I didn't know how to go about telling her,
it's not the kind of thing you can tell someone you don't know that well, let
alone someone you are flirting with... In the end I noobed out and stopped
talking to her. I felt so guilty, I'm sure she was wondering what she did or
said. I have since apologised and told her why.

> Well, that was definitely not a theory that crossed my mind.

I think that was pretty much exactly what she said.

~~~
noobermin
To be fair, she did say "no more games."

She's sending mixed signals, which is human. Unfortunately, the author
weighted the two disproportionally.

------
jacques_chester
My experience is: If you have to use tactics, it won't work in the long run.

And if you think it's smart to deliberately model yourself on a neglectful,
mildly sociopathic personality, shame on you.

------
pm90
There were many things wrong with how Aziz approached the situation. Firstly,
he should NOT have invited her to a big concert right away: concerts/events
are a big commitment, time and attention-wise. If he had just met the person,
the best thing to do would probably have been to meet for coffee/drinks, get
to know each other better and THEN propose going to the concert IN PERSON.

Secondly, there are a lot of factors why people will not text you back. Aziz
is basically trying to understand why a girl he hooked up with did not text
him back. There can be SO many reasons why; but primarily, she was just not
that into him. If she was, then she WOULD have found time. She WOULD have
found his attempt to find common ground, to find something they both liked,
charming.

~~~
Jtsummers

      “Hey—don’t know if you left for NYC, but Beach House
       playing tonight and tomorrow at Wiltern. You wanna go?
       Maybe they’ll let you cover The Motto if we ask nicely?”
    

1) She was going to be leaving soon, so a second meeting needed to be set up
soon, or it would get stretched to some unknown point in the future.

2) He knew she enjoyed the music, they'd listened to it the night before. So
while a concert is a time commitment, he at least knew it was one she might be
interested in.

3) He gave her both that day and the next as options for the date.

4) He referenced both the music they'd listened to while together and her
singing at the party. Reinforced the shared experience, and pointed out that
he was paying some attention to her.

He did fine. See the note at the end about their second encounter when she
said there'd be no games the second time around, and she went right back to
it. The lack of reply was all on her, he did everything he could/should have
done (much more would've been inappropriate since they didn't yet have much of
a connection, and less would've been doing nothing which he'd likely have
regretted for the missed opportunity).

------
alias240
My strategy when I meet a girl I like is to exchange numbers, but have no
intention of contacting them. The girl always has to contact the guy first.
It's just how it works.

~~~
DocG
>The girl always has to contact the guy first. It's just how it works

That seems a bit childish.

~~~
stuxnet79
Not only that, it seems like an ineffective strategy. I can't imagine you'd
get more than a 10% response rate from this - and that's if you are
exceedingly attractive. If you are just an average joe, this strategy
basically does not work. If I had enough things going on in my life though I'd
also always wait for the woman to contact me first because I've been used and
manipulated too many times and don't see most women as worth the effort.

~~~
busterarm
I'd make a wager that the original commenter we're referring to is from the
UK.

Men initiating interest with women isn't a universal cultural standard and
that's one of the places where women asking men out is much more common.

~~~
alias240
I am from the UK.

~~~
busterarm
Nailed it. :D

------
radikalus
This all feels a bit silly as I'm not terribly convinced time-between-texts
conveys much about the process (THE BRAIN) generating said data points.

The flow chart for "Should I reply to this right now?" is pretty complicated;
recovering that PGM is hard!

And as for signaling "busyness" \-- that's better accomplished through
delaying showing you "read" their messsage, no?

Is there a missing niche for a whatsapp wrapper that delays "read"
confirmations by 3 minutes?

------
kweks
Is it only me that finds this type of obsessive-compulsive over-thinking
somewhat bizarre; yet the author is trying to pass it off as the norm.

Perhaps it's the author's fretful nature and over analysis that drives women
away?

I've found the following 'tactics' have worked quite well: \- If you want to
send a message, send a message. \- If they don't reply, they're busy, or they
don't want to speak with you.

How is it any more complicated than that?

~~~
dajohnson89
What are you going to say next -- that love is really simple?

~~~
kweks
No, but there's no need to render it more complicated than it has to be.

If the person on the other side loses interests because you are indeed being
yourself, take it as an advantage. If they don't want to make the effort in
the period when they _should_ make the effort, they've saved you time.

The flipside, of course, is that if you're somewhat like the author and have
an fretting behavioural trait, you'll probably scare off a lot of people -
which is still a good thing. The ones that stay are worth your time.

------
joesmo
Text are asynchronous by nature. Expecting an immediate response is selfish.
You expect the other person to carry their phone, check their phone
constantly, and drop everything to respond to your (usually dumb) message?
Maybe that works with family, but not understanding the nature of asynchronous
messaging will hurt the sender a lot more than the receiver. Yes, people
sometimes play games, but most of the time they probably have lives (some
people still work and such during the day for example). The worst of the worst
is when someone gets angry because you didn't respond __when they wanted you
to __. Those people do not deserve anyone 's friendship.

------
mhb
I realize that this is an inquiry from another era, but people find it
acceptable that other people know when they have read a text? Isn't that
pretty intrusive?

~~~
Jtsummers
IMs had that feature in the 90s, so at least for the digital era it's not
abnormal for most of us. Professionally, we use read-receipts in emails in my
office.

~~~
cableshaft
I don't mind IM's showing the 'read' bit, but for some reason I've always
found read receipts on emails rude, and when it pops up the prompt to send the
receipt back I _always_ hit 'Cancel'. I wonder why.

------
davidiach
Two interesting and somehow opposite aspects of modern culture, we seek
instant gratification and we willingly delay communication.

I wonder if there is a relationship between the two.

~~~
Apocryphon
We're willing to gratify ourselves, while withholding the gratification of
others?

------
benten10
...my strategy on the other hand, is to drag one conversation over days/weeks,
with several hours/days of (not intentional) gaps in between, and act as if
it's a single ongoing unbroken conversation.

Not the optimal strategy, but I'm amazed that a ball of grains, dairy and
fruits managed to get that for anyway, so everything is a win.

------
hias
Just call her or ask her before she leaves.

Women are allowed to call you too btw.

------
xyzzy4
If your attraction to someone is determined by whether they have a 1 minute or
10 minute response time, then maybe you should reexamine your priorities.

~~~
golemotron
You're assuming that attraction is rational and a matter of choice. Think
about it. Isn't the world is wonderful because it isn't?

~~~
gelraen
Attraction sometimes is not a matter of choice, but actions are. You can
decide to continue communication with someone or not. You're not a slave of
your attraction.

~~~
golemotron
Sometimes it's nice to be, right?

~~~
gelraen
Nope. Attraction is a nice thing to feel, but it's generally more satisfying
if you act on it with conscious choice and not feel "forced" to do something
just because you feel a certain way.

~~~
the_af
I don't think that's how attraction works :(

Maybe building a stable, committed relationship -- something that not all
people want, by the way, and that's ok -- is an exercise in restraint and
rationality, but immediate attraction and hookups? It works irrationally
almost by definition.

~~~
gelraen
My point is not about how attraction works, it's about what people do about
it. You can feel attraction and decide to act on it almost instantly, but
that's still your choice and you are responsible for what you do. But if you
feel that attraction is "making you do something" against your will, when you
realize negative consequences of your actions – that's definition of
addiction.

~~~
the_af
What I'm arguing is that attraction bypasses the mechanisms of will and
rational decision. We are not logical robots. Most of us do not "decide" to
like another person.

Falling in love or feeling sexually attracted to someone are irrational things
by definition. You do not decide to do it. You cannot force yourself to feel
attracted to someone because they "play fair", either. Because of (reasonable)
society norms, you cannot simply engage with everyone you're sexually
attracted to -- it's not ok to harass fellow coworkers, or someone else's
partner, etc. But the core of it is irrational. You cannot impose rational
rules like "I'll pay more attention to people who text me back immediately or
who are more considerate of other people, or who I agree with on serious
issues, even though what I'd _really_ like is to call X and do the naughty all
night long".

------
donretag
'the status of my text message changed to “read.”'

I am assuming this is an iPhone "feature"? Creepy. Can it be disabled?

~~~
Jacqued
iMessages, facebook, whatsapp, ... Unfortunately every messaging platform
(except old school texts, but iPhones will automatically send iMessages to
other iPhones) seem to have implemented this "feature"

~~~
Jtsummers
It's optional in iMessages, I believe it's opt-in (not 100%, changed the
setting a long time ago to have it on, personal preference).

That said, it was creepy when I realized the only reason it was enabled on my
ex-girlfriend's phone (she didn't like it and is tech-illiterate) was that her
_previous_ boyfriend had enabled it to see if/when she read his messages
(creepy dude that'd send her flowers randomly two years after their break up,
but she thought it was sweet and that they were "just friends", yeah, sure).

------
ryanmarsh
TIL guys are openly hostile to solid dating advice

~~~
Trill-I-Am
It's not very welcome when it's this complicated. Injecting social artifices
into something as seemingly simple as text communication is frustrating. How
often do any of us think about the emotional impact of the timing of a text
message in any other context?

------
pmarreck
So TL;DR:

Uncertain reply-time-window dynamics enabled by the era of
asynchronous/deferred indirect communication (aka "texting"/"emailing") create
a situation where the psychological principles of the Variable Ratio
Reinforcement Schedule
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement))
kick in, which, as it turns out, is the most addicting, thus creating the most
drama.

I get that about right? ;)

Word to the wise (single men): Online dating apps put much more power into the
hands of women than men. If you want to score something "out of your league,"
you're going to have to take a walk out of the ballpark, and get your hands
dirty in the real world with some face-to-face time. Uncoincidentally, this
takes advantage of _another_ psychological principle, Repeated Proximity
Breeds Attraction ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-
exposure_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect))

~~~
herbig
The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard
and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.

~~~
lighttower
> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a
> scoreboard

This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled
to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest
communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong
with the OP's use of _scoring_ \- the outraged expressed by the commenter
above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Well, I wasn't outraged before, but I have to admit that I may be feeling a
touch of outrage now.

The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open
and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this:
changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out
of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.

There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this
conversation, but I don't think it's GP.

~~~
aninhumer
I strongly agree with this criticism of the language (I winced reading it),
but I also agree that the way it was criticised here was unnecessarily
inflammatory.

There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and
including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more
palatable.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Fair enough. I agree that the comment could have been more carefully worded.
Note, though, that this does not (I hope!) explain the cool reception (to put
it mildly) to my own comments in the same vein.

~~~
Kalium
The comment was, well, offensively chauvinist.

------
thirdsun
> One area where there was a lot of debate was the amount of time one should
> wait to text back. Several people subscribed to the notion of doubling the
> response time. (They write back in five minutes, you wait 10, etc.) This way
> you achieve the upper hand and constantly seem busier and less available
> than your counterpart. Others thought waiting just a few minutes was enough
> to prove you had something important in your life besides your phone. Some
> thought you should double, but occasionally throw in a quick response to not
> seem so regimented (nothing too long, though!). Some people swore by waiting
> 1.25 times longer. Others argued they found three minutes to be just right.
> There were also those who were so fed up with the games that they thought
> receiving timely responses free of games was refreshing and showed
> confidence.

Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys
these games? If I'm available, read your message and have time to answer,
you'll receive an answer immediately. Pretending to be busy, upper hands - I
get the idea, yet I really don't think it's preferable to being yourself.

~~~
donquichotte
Also, doubling response time every time is essentially exponential backoff, a
strategy I mainly use when trying to let an uncomfortable discussion die
gracefully.

~~~
cousin_it
I think HN uses a variant of that to prevent long back-and-forth discussions.

~~~
thomasahle
You mean, if HN detects a long back-forth, it'll not show your post to anyone
for a while after you've submitted it?

That's quite interesting. Is this used anywhere else on the web?

~~~
Jtsummers
The reply link won't appear immediately for deeply nested comments. Initially
a minute or two, eventually many minutes. The comments still appear as fast as
you allow with your "delay" setting in your profile (2 minutes for me: time to
edit, and time to delete the stupid messages that felt good to write but that
I shouldn't have written).

~~~
cousin_it
Sometimes (always?) the reply link doesn't show up in the comment thread, but
shows up when you visit the individual comment through its permalink. That's
probably a bug though.

~~~
Jtsummers
Always and I think it's deliberate. Those who know can keep it going, but it
requires deliberate effort (just enough more than clicking reply) that it
might stop some of the back and forth ("Do I really need to put in this much
effort for _this_ conversation?").

