Realistic underpinnings of hippie "vibrations"

From website: "We use the term vibrations now as well, and it hasn't changed much in terms of its meaning. It still conjures up images of invisible rays of energy flying through the air and influencing people in various ways. For instance, we know what happens when we get "vibed" by someone. It means to encounter anger, a cold shoulder, an inhospitable response. But it also suggests more than just the outer expressions of emotion, as evidenced only by gestures or words."

Three physical things

(1) OK, in physics a ray is usually something like light. It's measurable, and it's measurable with pretty simple equipment, you can use photographic paper and stuff like that to "pick it up."

(2) Mechanical vibrations are also pretty easy to pick up - use a seismograph or something like that.

(3) Electromagnetic vibrations - that's what radio's pick up.

So first thing is to just accept the hippie vibrations are something else, not just the physics definition.

So how is a (hippie) vibe transmitted really? You take in information about the whole person. The sound of the voice (pitch and tamper), the way the joints are moving, posture, the actual words, the meaning, the phrasing, haircut, facial expression (muscles of the face), all of that stuff. It's all processed in a fraction of a second without you even knowing it. You have a high speed computer of sorts in your head that processes all of this on its own. It even goes into your mind and affects you. Like being around a happy person is more likely to make you happen. All of that goes on based on the dynamics in your brain, which is interpreting signals and adjusting both your perception of the person and your own mood.

So what I'm saying is that the vibe is sort of a signal, but it's very complicated to generate and detect (not hard for a human, but it would be hard to make another machine that does it). That's why you use motion capture for good 3D movies - you want to capture the way real people (actors) move - it's very hard to fake it with simple algorithms. It feels natural and easy because the brain (the deeper parts that you are not aware of) take care of all the work.

I'm reading this website and I tend to agree with the way that it models human interaction with physical analogies and stuff:
http://www.lightfigures.com/goodvibrationspeople/index.php?p=4

However, I have to say, it's dangerous to do too much with the analogy.

Example:
"For instance, they say that after a few years couples often start acting and speaking like one another. This is because their energy fields are constantly inter‑mingling. They become very sympathetic in terms of their vibrational patterns, and some will tell you that they know what their partner will say before they actually verbalize it. In extreme cases of auric resonance, they may even begin to resemble each other physically."

OK, if you have two bells, this is exactly describing what happens in terms of mechanical vibrations. (Number 2 above.)

But with people this is really what's happening:
(1) Acting like one another. This is because they are observing each other constantly and learning behaviors from each other. Humans do it. Apes do it. It's neurological, and it's an instinct. To say it's a vibration is not really scientifically accurate.
(2) Knowing what their partner will say. This is because the human brain has awesome predictive ability. In order to make the predictions, it needs sufficient "training" data, which comes from spending a lot of time with a person. Computer science is currently doing stuff analogous to this, machine learning, etc. - sometimes inspired by how the brain is configured.
(3) Resemble each other physically? That won't really happen except for certain cases. Like people who stay out in the sun together will both eventually get leathery tan skin (I've seen that). People who are both goth will start to both dress like goth, etc. However, stuff like bone structure will not spontaneously modify to bring them into sync.

Anyway, the principles taught are really valuable. I can see that. It's just strange that people who talk about this often don't keep everything "scientifically" accurate and rigorous. You actually could if you wanted, and pretty much teach the same thing I think.

Why an online date meetup makes another girl mad

I went on a POF date with a different woman (where nothing happened) a few days after kissing a woman and such. The original woman got really upset. This is an analysis of why.

The thing is, many of the things that women do and consider fun are roughly equivalent to a POF date. (Maybe men too, but I haven't studied men much, so I'm not making a statement about them here.) Women enjoy going out and being around people appropriate to their age. They enjoy being in mixed crowds of friends and new people so they can meet new people while still being the presence of friends - friends who provide a layer of safety, fun, and help in evaluation. Compared to a nigh out, a POF date is actually less, it's just a conversation with one person. With a night out, a girl could have a conversation with 20 people, and possibly date any of them.

So in my mind, a POF date was basically nothing. There's arguably less mate evaluation happening than going out to salsa, which is something she does all the time anyway. This is how I see it, and I think it's valid. But it's not how she saw it. And from now on, I'll know that women respond emotionally to certain things - maybe things with "dating" in the title or whatever, regardless of the actual content.

The fact is women are always doing stuff to meet people that could end up sexual partners. They consider all the stuff just fun - parties, going out, talking to people at coffee shops, etc. etc. And they interpret all of that as just living a normal life - with little conscious awareness that they are programmed to use all those methods to evaluate people and find mates. Typical comment: "I wasn't looking for anybody and I just stumbled upon this guy..." Well OK, but she was probably going out on a regular bases evaluating 10's or 100's of people week by week through interaction and conversation. That's not exactly stumbling.

I suppose the difference with POF is that the intention moves more into the conscious rather than unconscious - it's just too obvious.

Dryer lint

Seems like with the about of lint that comes out of the dryer, my clothes would be disappearing from fiber-loss faster than they are.

Purpose

You can sort of choose whatever you want as purpose, however you can't necessarily make the goal resonate with your own mind. When you are young apparently the purpose is defined. (Inner child that stays with you.)

Optimal difference for sexual attraction

Too much the same and you have inbreeding problems. Too much different and you may not even produce fertile offspring (horse and donkey). Just enough difference can produce really healthy offspring, an effect known as heterogenous vigor. This is why people are attracted to the other. This is why foreign languages are sexy. It's also why people often marry similar races. They look for different, but not extremely different mates.

Optimal amount of lie

In religion, spirituality, politics, and marketing, there is an optimal amount of nontruth that will bring in the largest number of followers. The complete truth is usually too cold, and can turn people away. A complete lie is often transparent and will turn people away. Somewhere in between is an optimal story, a mixture of truth an nontruth, which will attract the most followers.

Necessity of an anchor, true or not

Could call up leadership of Jehohah's Witnesses and suggest that they teach good principles without the baggage attached such as claims that biological evolution didn't affect human origin. However, in reality the religion is based on an underlying faith in the bible, and the people who would accept the principles without the rest of the baggage may be an almost mutually exclusive set to the current members.

Bible is like DNA

Asking whether the Bible is true is like asking if DNA is true. It doesn't matter. It's a set of instructions. When carried out, it forms a super-organism. That super-organism is either strong or not.

Strongest religions survived

The stories of religion are impressive, but from a sort of evil genius standpoint. They are highly manipulative. They take core instincts of people like love of parents and fear of death and use them to mold people. They do this extremely effectively. Only the strongest religions survived. The ones that continue to exist today are extremely powerful in their ability to implant into people and "reproduce" or spread to others.

Evolutionary significance of using hands while making out

I'm thinking about the legs that started on fish and all the things that happened to them through evolution. Snakes took an extreme approach and dropped all four, focusing efforts on hyper deadly jaws. T-rex kept that back but didn't use the front much... maybe in another 100 million years they would have disappeared completely. Whales grew a tale and let the back legs go to nothing while making the front into flippers... consider that the front legs were fins to start with on the fish... so full circle. Birds kept the reptile back legs and modified the front into wings... then penguins made the wings into flippers. After a long stint of being a land mammal on all four, humans stood up and freed front legs to be hands. The human hand is pretty amazing. I don't know of any other animal with such an advanced manipulator... evolved specifically for building and using tools. Dexterity must have been extremely important to survival to evolve to such a level. And of course, anything that is extemely important to survival will be extremely important in terms of sexual attraction. That, my friends, is why humans do so much with their hands when they are making out. It's little test, in realtime, answering a question about what one can do with one's hands.

Occam's razor in design and evolution

In the book The Design of Everyday Things, the author describes how designs tend to get over-complicated with too many features and then later on reduced to a more optimal set of only the most useful features. This is like a snake culling away it's legs and just becoming a tube that eats things.

 

Belief and purpose

Two special items exist in human minds, global purpose and spiritual belief, both of them often configured at childhood and then left in place for the rest of life. It helps to have both active at the same time. Spiritual belief is what allows a purpose to be well defined. Most animal don't have either one, and they are fine like that, but they can't really see bigger pictures like humans can. In a way, the highly social animals like ants do have both, but they are hard-wired. For example an ant will sacrifice its life to save the colony without any hesitation. The ant's belief system is crystal clear. With humans, the spiritual beliefs are very diverse, not hardwired the same for each. They are arbitrary, but not random. The beliefs can't be proven because they are too fundamental. They are the axioms, stated without proof. The stories of religion were created to make the beliefs more teachable and understandable. The stories are fictitios, but the beliefs, the definitions of purpose that stem from them, the consequences - are real.

How women always keep their options open

Women are always seeking out new sexual partners. this is what they refer to as going out and having fun. they arenlt consciously aware of what they want, but they know what feels fun. they want to look sexy and dress carefully to do this, essentially conveying that they are fertile to other males. they won't neccesarily reproduce at all because these days there is birth control, but their minds evolved in a time when birth control didn't exist.

Women don't need online dating because they ate constantly putting themselves in situations with people who are the opposite sex and about their age, thatls the social interaction they enjoy most.

So, if you have a girlfriend, she probably won't want you doing online dating, but she will always be doing its equavalent, going out and meeting people.

It's probably best to play the same game. if you really want something like online dating while you have a girlfriend, just go out with her. maybe use facebbok more, it may not be a dating website, but itls pretty useful in a similar way.

To be clear, I don't recommend deceiving your girlfriend, what ilm saying is that she will always keep her options open, so you should too.

Women considering the future

I want to tell her to enjoy the moment. Narrow the experience down to about one month, and just work with that. I can narrow it down to about 30 seconds. She wants to project out 30 years into the future, evaluating the probability of her children's survival, before deciding whether to go to dinner.

Women can laugh at fairly small things, so use this in conversation and text messages

Women can laugh at fairly small things. Things that don't seem that funny. They are more likely to laugh at what a man said if they are attracted to the man and more likely to be attracted if they have reason to laugh. It's a positive feedback system. It doesn't have to be like Robin Williams stand-up. Simple comments can work. I observed a guy making fun of girl a little bit for not knowing where Ukraine is. Then he kept referring back to this. He even added it to a text message that he sent to her later, something about her forgetting where Ukraine is or whatever. She got a kick out of it. Women love to communicate, and they love it more with a little bit of humor or making fun, as long as it's light.