01-05-2019, 09:41 AM
I'll briefly break from my aversion to anecdotes, but I'll still stick with summarization over play-by-play.
Last night was my first night out since starting 3.3. I don't know if the aura (or even the celebrity effect) ever left standby because an old (female) acquaintance who worked (or used to work?) at the venue threw a woman at me as soon as I'd been handed my first drink. And that woman and I chatted the entire night away.
The bartender (another acquaintance) was also pleased by how well we were getting along, an occasional FWB claimed that we'd spent the night looking like we were on a date, and the interaction was lamp-shaded enough by others to bother mentioning here. Despite the spectators' point of view, nothing particularly sexual came up (not that I would've objected), unless you count mutual sartorial compliments, but it was just a nice, easy connection in that "We know a lot of the same people and places and seem to like more of the same things than the people that we both know do, so how have we never met before?" kind of way.
If DMSI helped, great. If not, that's great too. We'd almost certainly have met eventually anyway. Things like this have happened many times before, but, as I can't recall being thrown at someone and had them thrown at me so forcibly on those occasions, I'm reporting the aberration, just in case it's relevant. It may not be.
It could also be argued that the conversation was a form of resistance against all of the other women present having an opportunity with me, a mirage-like form of sabotage that only looked like social success while really just being a public-adjacent place to hide. The variety of plausible hypotheses is why I can be difficult to convince that any one unproven hypothesis is "the truth" or is "the answer" to any question. I'm not very inclined to rush to just any plausible answer in fear of not having one, later defending it as if it's true because I've turned that hasty conclusion into a belief; there are just too many plausible answers to most questions, in my opinion. for that to be a trustworthy method of drawing conclusions (and then forming beliefs based on them). Especially since some questions can have more than one answer, multi-part answers, or fishing boats full of red herrings. I have trouble seeing impatience ("need it now!"), laziness ("can't be bothered to think of anything else"), lack of creativity ("can't think of anything better"), blind trust ("so and so said so"), or a need for completeness ("can't be left unanswered") as a good reason to declare something fully answered when it hasn't been. I'm not omniscient, so my current guess, however good, is almost always probably incomplete, if not inaccurate. Whatever guess I choose (if I choose one so soon) may do for now, but I'm not going to declare undying loyalty to it or get upset if it's as wrong as it has every reason to be. Hmm. That turned into an unintended digression, but I'll leave it.
Additional social observation from last night: The female friend who thought that I hated her while I was on 3.1 was back to being concerned (again) that I hate her. That would seem to rule out 3.1's anti-sniper as having been the cause, but, if that's the case, it may suggest that she's interested in holding my attention, even if she's not specifically interested in the same type of attention that I turn toward others while on DMSI. Or it might be other changes in me while I'm on DMSI. I'd ask her directly, but she doesn't seem to know why she perceives it that way herself.
Last night was my first night out since starting 3.3. I don't know if the aura (or even the celebrity effect) ever left standby because an old (female) acquaintance who worked (or used to work?) at the venue threw a woman at me as soon as I'd been handed my first drink. And that woman and I chatted the entire night away.
The bartender (another acquaintance) was also pleased by how well we were getting along, an occasional FWB claimed that we'd spent the night looking like we were on a date, and the interaction was lamp-shaded enough by others to bother mentioning here. Despite the spectators' point of view, nothing particularly sexual came up (not that I would've objected), unless you count mutual sartorial compliments, but it was just a nice, easy connection in that "We know a lot of the same people and places and seem to like more of the same things than the people that we both know do, so how have we never met before?" kind of way.
If DMSI helped, great. If not, that's great too. We'd almost certainly have met eventually anyway. Things like this have happened many times before, but, as I can't recall being thrown at someone and had them thrown at me so forcibly on those occasions, I'm reporting the aberration, just in case it's relevant. It may not be.
It could also be argued that the conversation was a form of resistance against all of the other women present having an opportunity with me, a mirage-like form of sabotage that only looked like social success while really just being a public-adjacent place to hide. The variety of plausible hypotheses is why I can be difficult to convince that any one unproven hypothesis is "the truth" or is "the answer" to any question. I'm not very inclined to rush to just any plausible answer in fear of not having one, later defending it as if it's true because I've turned that hasty conclusion into a belief; there are just too many plausible answers to most questions, in my opinion. for that to be a trustworthy method of drawing conclusions (and then forming beliefs based on them). Especially since some questions can have more than one answer, multi-part answers, or fishing boats full of red herrings. I have trouble seeing impatience ("need it now!"), laziness ("can't be bothered to think of anything else"), lack of creativity ("can't think of anything better"), blind trust ("so and so said so"), or a need for completeness ("can't be left unanswered") as a good reason to declare something fully answered when it hasn't been. I'm not omniscient, so my current guess, however good, is almost always probably incomplete, if not inaccurate. Whatever guess I choose (if I choose one so soon) may do for now, but I'm not going to declare undying loyalty to it or get upset if it's as wrong as it has every reason to be. Hmm. That turned into an unintended digression, but I'll leave it.
Additional social observation from last night: The female friend who thought that I hated her while I was on 3.1 was back to being concerned (again) that I hate her. That would seem to rule out 3.1's anti-sniper as having been the cause, but, if that's the case, it may suggest that she's interested in holding my attention, even if she's not specifically interested in the same type of attention that I turn toward others while on DMSI. Or it might be other changes in me while I'm on DMSI. I'd ask her directly, but she doesn't seem to know why she perceives it that way herself.
