Brownie Points

Chapter Eleven Reflection

With the hanging question of online relationships, I answer that they are supplements but not replacements. There has been reports that people who meet online eventually want to meet-up and 'eyeball' each other to legitimise the relationship and 'to take it to the next level'. From that, there seems to be the acknowledgement that physical interaction is an important element, almost a prerequisite, for a 'real' relationship.

But that isn't to say online correspondence is to be shunned. Let's regress it to less demanding 'friendships' and general social interaction. It's undeniable that your online network connections help at least in the maintenance aspect. As a moderator of an online film group (and part of a few other online interest groups), there's something to be said about the merits technology has gifted us. A lot of members are people I've never met and who I don't know beyond their names and avatars, but we get into good discussion that our diverse contexts (some work, some study in that school in Katipunan, some don't even live in the Philippines) would not have allowed otherwise.

It's also the same case for friends who I've actually met and physically hung out with in the past. Some have graduated and work abroad, some are people I used to hang out with ten hours a week but incompatible breaks force us apart. The internet has obviously helped us continue talking, continue laughing at each other's stupidity, that a consumable set-up (texting and load) would not have allowed.

There are younger people in your organisation that you may have never really met, but online interactions show that you are quite similar in a lot of things, and that works as a jump-off point for a more substantial relationship, be it a physically intimate one or not, but surely in hand with a digital facet. In any case, when we talk about 'proximity' (in terms of what leads to friendships and attraction), it is more of functional distance really than actual physical distance.

Will online interaction supplant going out and talking? No. Probably at least not to my generation. Who knows what happens inside the minds of young kids. But observing my peers gives a definite no. There has been research that shows how online group meetings supplement a better product, but time and again in my four years in university, it has been a euphemism for “I'm too lazy to meet-up with you and comprehensively discuss the work we have to do.”. As far as we have progressed in terms of video-conferencing, chat logging, etcetera, it's almost always in actual physical overnight meetings at a group member's house where work actually progresses.

Right there, something very nuts and bolts is difficult to replace entirely. How much more something so complicated as a social relationship, much less a love and romance sort of thing?

The chapter lists off a bunch of things that go into attraction. For proximity, interaction, even anticipation of interaction, and mere exposure. The last one is very important of course. UP students (all genders) like to bemoan the lack of attractive people on campus. This shows, possibly, how preternaturally intelligent we are, already showing a direness acknowledgement that there is a good chance we'll fall in love with someone who, well, doesn't look that great. We obviously have to surround ourselves with brilliant and gorgeous people unless we wish to resign to that. This is the reason friends of mine (I can't say I'm proud of them for this)  are insanely excited when the organization is having a swap or meet with our sister organizations in Katipunan, Taft, Ortigas. Of course, we can rib them and say that these people from other schools are only attractive because you expect them to be, and then name-drop the various literature.

There was also some interesting points with very real application or examples. There's the idea of similarity. Similarity is very much the overwhelming norm, and that isn't making a value judgement. It just happens that most people interface in that way. Of course there is a line in the textbook that says that scientists have been so far unable to prove that opposites attract outside of magnets. And though some people are attracted to people who complement them/different from them, they are either outliers, weird people, or unattractive people. Or magnets.

There's also something that ties up with the infuriating local thing that is pakipot. Could it possibly be rooted (in a parallel development) to how though we like those who like us, or eventually grow to do so (unless their 'like' is more fake than noontime soap acting), we like people even more than when they initially don't like us at all. I think Michael Tan had an old opinion article on this but I can't be sure. But the logic is sound in the sense of delayed gratification and how approval is most rewarding after a deprival.

Along this is further research that we are attracted to people we associate with rewards, besides those who rewards us in the first place. A bit related to this is a favourite piece of research that links arousal and attraction. It involves a label being misattributed during an arousal phenomenon.

This was famously done in the bridge experiment by Dutton and Aron where the precariously high bridge arouses you, but since arousal in itself is ambiguous, it can be manipulated. In this case, through the framework of arousal plus a label (person) results in an emotion (attraction), instead of when you are aroused and you label it as coming from the bridge (whereby you'll just have wobbly knees). This is the primary reason I keep telling people that horror movies (at least the good ones) are the best date movies, of course you should see it beforehand if you are the easily-scared sort of person, so you won't get frazzled in the actual date—for more brownie points.

There's also the interesting idea of implicit egotism. Being a Jethro, I wonder what sort of people I would be attracted to (I can count one J, and one K from the past, but that's it), a Jeskeets? Extending the idea, should I be attracted to Jethro Tull's stuff? I do sense some logic in it though. If you name your child Jeeves, there's a good chance they will be attracted to the prospect of butlering.

Proximity is underscored by the idea of what is familiar is attractive. We discussed in class how, in a paradise island, you would want to be partnered with someone who is Filipino (higher chance of similar context and similar experiences). There's also a wish to be partnered with someone who shares the same ideas and stand on things. There are pragmatic reasons for this, but I do stand with my decision to be partnered with Candice Swanepoel.

It seems, in the end of all the talk about proximity, physical attractiveness is still king. Now what is attractive depends on the personal context, the cultural context, but there are what we can call standards. There's the golden ratio, symmetry, average, and there is an evolutionary perspective on what is seen as healthy is seen as sexy and good.

There's also the idea of the matching phenomenon and how the most attractive people usually hook-up with the other most attractive people. This certainly sucks for the people who aren't very attractive, but they probably already knew that (kidding). This is actually very conscious and some people may be offended when someone they see as much less attractive propositions them. Now I'm not trying to say anything, but I just want to bring up again my jibe in class that all my friends are gorgeous. Just wanted to get it out there (again, kidding).

Now this is all just attraction and finding a connection for the night. There's a lot of work on actually being in a relationship and what happens during relationship disintegration. There's all sorts of big words like Equity and Self-Disclosure you have to be aware of. Good luck.