Of course it always depends on your preexisting relationship and other factors. You always have to calibrate to the situation at hand.
A lot of people automatically form images in their mind if you tell them something to process the thought. I know the girl in question from an NLP/hypnosis context, so she should be aware on some level that language works that way.
In general girls are also more likely to be aware that language has many lavers of meaning besides communicating facts.
Please say “women” unless you are talking about female humans that have not reached adulthood.
That only one meaning of the word. If you look at websters, I think the meaning to which I’m refering here is: “c : a young unmarried woman”.
That’s the reference class that I talk about when I speak about flirtation. I don’t interact with a 60 year old woman the same way as I do with a young unmarried woman.
I think that a good lesson for all kind of flirting, there no one-side fits all solution to signal it but you always have to react to the specific context at hand.
A lot of people automatically form images in their mind if you tell them something to process the thought.
...oh.
recalls times he has told single female friends he was going to take a shower of vice versa; lots of times
considers searching Facebook chat log for words for ‘shower’
Fuck that. A photo of me half naked was my profile picture for a long time, and there are videos of me performing strip teases on there, so what people picture when I tell them I’m going to wash myself shouldn’t be among my top concerns.
(Anyway, how do I recognize that kind of people? Feynman figured that out about (IIRC) Bethe because the latter could count in his head while talking but not while reading, but that kind of situations don’t come up that often.)
recalls times he has told single female friends he was going to take a shower of vice versa; lots of times
Communication has many levels. If I tell you not to think of a pink elephant, on one hand I do tell you that you should try not to think of a pink elephant.
On the other hand I give you a suggestion to think of a pink elephant and most people follow that suggestion and do think of a pink elephant.
Different people do that to different extends. There are people who easily form very detailed pictures in their mind and other people who don’t follow such suggestion as easily.
On of the things you learn in hypnosis is to put pictures into people heads through principles like that where the suggestion doesn’t get criticially analysed.
There are etiquette rules that suggest that it’s impolite in certain situation to say “I’m going to the toilet”, because of those reasons.
Communication that text based usually doesn’t give suggestions that are as strong as in person suggestions. After all the person already perceives the text visually.
As a rule of thumb people look upwards when they process internal images, but that doesn’t always happen and not every time someone looks upwards he processes an internal image.
That what gets taught in NLP courses. There are some scientific studies that suggest that isn’t the case. Those studies have some problems because the don’t have good controls about whether a person really thinks about pictures.
In any case I don’t think recognising such things is something you can easily learn via reading a discussion like this or a book. It rather takes a lot of in person training.
But I don’t think you get very far in seducing woman by trying to use such tricks to let woman form naked images of you. There are PUA people who try that under the label “speed seduction” with generally very little results.
Trying to use language that way usually get’s people inside their heads. Emotions are more important than images.
If something a woman says to you in a casual context you can think about whether there’s a plausible story about how the woman says what she says to signal attraction to you.
There are etiquette rules that suggest that it’s impolite in certain situation to say “I’m going to the toilet”, because of those reasons.
I don’t think that’s the reason, because if it was it would apply regardless of which words you use, whatever their literal meaning, so long as it’s reasonably unambiguous in the context (why would “the ladies’ room” or “talk to a man about a horse” be any less problematic, when the listener knows what you mean?), and it wouldn’t depend on which side of the pond you’re on (ISTM that “toilet” is less often replaced by euphemisms in BrE than in AmE).
I don’t think that’s the reason, because if it was it would apply regardless of which words you use, whatever their literal meaning, so long as it’s reasonably unambiguous in the context (why would “the ladies’ room” or “talk to a man about a horse” be any less problematic, when the listener knows what you mean?)
When a woman goes to the ladies room she might also go to fix up her makeup or hairstyle.
Secondly words matter. Words trigger thoughts. If you speak in deep metaphars you will produce less images than if you describe something in detail.
(ISTM that “toilet” is less often replaced by euphemisms in BrE than in AmE).
Americans are more uptight about intimicy, so that fits nicely. They have a stronger ban on cureswords on US television than in Great Britian.
I would also expect more people in Bible Belt stats to use suuch euphemisms than in California.
Fun fact: Brits and Americans actually use the word ‘toilet’ in very different ways. An American goes to the restroom and sits on the toilet; a Brit goes to the toilet and sits on the loo. When a Brit hears the word ‘toilet’, he’s thinking about the room, not the implement.
When a woman goes to the ladies room she might also go to fix up her makeup or hairstyle.
She can do the same things in the toilet too, can’t she?
If you speak in deep metaphars you will produce less images than if you describe something in detail.
But once a metaphor becomes common enough, it stops being a metaphor: if I’m saying that I’m checking my time, is that a chess metaphor? For that matter, “toilet” didn’t etymologically mean what it means now either—it originally referred to a piece of cloth. So, yes, words trigger thoughts, but they don’t to that based on their etymology, but based on what situations the listener associates them with.
(Why are specifying Great Britain, anyway? How different are things in NI than in the rest of the UK? I only spent a few days there, hardly any of which watching TV.)
She can do the same things in the toilet too, can’t she?
Yes, but that image isn’t as directly conjured up by the word toilet.
I’m also not saying that the term ladies room will never conjure up the same image just that it is less likely to do so.
Furthermore, if you are in a culture where some people use euphemisms while others do not, you signal something by your choice to either use or not use the euphemisms.
Of course what you signal is different when you are conscious that the other person consciously notices that you make that choice than when it happens on a more unconscious level.
(Why are specifying Great Britain, anyway? How different are things in NI than in the rest of the UK? I only spent a few days there, hardly any of which watching TV.)
But I don’t think you get very far in seducing woman by trying to use such tricks to let woman form naked images of you.
That’s not something I’d want to do anyway. (That’s why my reaction in the first couple seconds after I read your comment was being worried that I might have done that by accident. Then I decided that if someone was that susceptible there would likely be much bigger issues anyway.)
Boy did that set off my creep detector.
Of course it always depends on your preexisting relationship and other factors. You always have to calibrate to the situation at hand.
A lot of people automatically form images in their mind if you tell them something to process the thought. I know the girl in question from an NLP/hypnosis context, so she should be aware on some level that language works that way.
In general girls are also more likely to be aware that language has many lavers of meaning besides communicating facts.
Please say “women” unless you are talking about female humans that have not reached adulthood.
That only one meaning of the word. If you look at websters, I think the meaning to which I’m refering here is: “c : a young unmarried woman”.
That’s the reference class that I talk about when I speak about flirtation. I don’t interact with a 60 year old woman the same way as I do with a young unmarried woman.
Do women forget whether language has many layers of meaning besides communicating facts once they get married or grow old?
Unmarried women are more likely than whom to be aware of that? Than everyone else? Than unmarried men? Than married women? Than David_Gerald?
Yeah, sorry, I should have garnished that more. “Without knowing more context …”
I think that a good lesson for all kind of flirting, there no one-side fits all solution to signal it but you always have to react to the specific context at hand.
...oh.
recalls times he has told single female friends he was going to take a shower of vice versa; lots of times
considers searching Facebook chat log for words for ‘shower’
Fuck that. A photo of me half naked was my profile picture for a long time, and there are videos of me performing strip teases on there, so what people picture when I tell them I’m going to wash myself shouldn’t be among my top concerns.
(Anyway, how do I recognize that kind of people? Feynman figured that out about (IIRC) Bethe because the latter could count in his head while talking but not while reading, but that kind of situations don’t come up that often.)
Communication has many levels. If I tell you not to think of a pink elephant, on one hand I do tell you that you should try not to think of a pink elephant. On the other hand I give you a suggestion to think of a pink elephant and most people follow that suggestion and do think of a pink elephant.
Different people do that to different extends. There are people who easily form very detailed pictures in their mind and other people who don’t follow such suggestion as easily.
On of the things you learn in hypnosis is to put pictures into people heads through principles like that where the suggestion doesn’t get criticially analysed.
There are etiquette rules that suggest that it’s impolite in certain situation to say “I’m going to the toilet”, because of those reasons.
Communication that text based usually doesn’t give suggestions that are as strong as in person suggestions. After all the person already perceives the text visually.
As a rule of thumb people look upwards when they process internal images, but that doesn’t always happen and not every time someone looks upwards he processes an internal image. That what gets taught in NLP courses. There are some scientific studies that suggest that isn’t the case. Those studies have some problems because the don’t have good controls about whether a person really thinks about pictures. In any case I don’t think recognising such things is something you can easily learn via reading a discussion like this or a book. It rather takes a lot of in person training.
But I don’t think you get very far in seducing woman by trying to use such tricks to let woman form naked images of you. There are PUA people who try that under the label “speed seduction” with generally very little results.
Trying to use language that way usually get’s people inside their heads. Emotions are more important than images.
You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model .
If something a woman says to you in a casual context you can think about whether there’s a plausible story about how the woman says what she says to signal attraction to you.
Now that I know how it feels to listen to someone talking about a Feynman diagram while driving on a motorway, I get your points. :-)
I don’t think that’s the reason, because if it was it would apply regardless of which words you use, whatever their literal meaning, so long as it’s reasonably unambiguous in the context (why would “the ladies’ room” or “talk to a man about a horse” be any less problematic, when the listener knows what you mean?), and it wouldn’t depend on which side of the pond you’re on (ISTM that “toilet” is less often replaced by euphemisms in BrE than in AmE).
When a woman goes to the ladies room she might also go to fix up her makeup or hairstyle. Secondly words matter. Words trigger thoughts. If you speak in deep metaphars you will produce less images than if you describe something in detail.
Americans are more uptight about intimicy, so that fits nicely. They have a stronger ban on cureswords on US television than in Great Britian. I would also expect more people in Bible Belt stats to use suuch euphemisms than in California.
Fun fact: Brits and Americans actually use the word ‘toilet’ in very different ways. An American goes to the restroom and sits on the toilet; a Brit goes to the toilet and sits on the loo. When a Brit hears the word ‘toilet’, he’s thinking about the room, not the implement.
She can do the same things in the toilet too, can’t she?
But once a metaphor becomes common enough, it stops being a metaphor: if I’m saying that I’m checking my time, is that a chess metaphor? For that matter, “toilet” didn’t etymologically mean what it means now either—it originally referred to a piece of cloth. So, yes, words trigger thoughts, but they don’t to that based on their etymology, but based on what situations the listener associates them with.
(Why are specifying Great Britain, anyway? How different are things in NI than in the rest of the UK? I only spent a few days there, hardly any of which watching TV.)
Yes, but that image isn’t as directly conjured up by the word toilet.
I’m also not saying that the term ladies room will never conjure up the same image just that it is less likely to do so.
Furthermore, if you are in a culture where some people use euphemisms while others do not, you signal something by your choice to either use or not use the euphemisms.
Of course what you signal is different when you are conscious that the other person consciously notices that you make that choice than when it happens on a more unconscious level.
I didn’t intent any special meaning there.
That’s not something I’d want to do anyway. (That’s why my reaction in the first couple seconds after I read your comment was being worried that I might have done that by accident. Then I decided that if someone was that susceptible there would likely be much bigger issues anyway.)