For me, I feel that I have filters just like everyone else does when it comes to deciding whether or not someone can be a potential romantic partner. I typically find it very attractive when a girl wears Jordan shoes and has a sense of humor. If those two things are not within her traits, then it might take me a little longer to consier this person to be a partner. I learned when I was in high school that I found myself more attracted to girls who wore Jordan's rather than girls who did not, but the of those girls who worse Jordan's I did not enjoy being around them or wanted to talk to them if they did not have a sense of humor. On the flip side, when there were girls who had a great sense of humor, even though I enjoyed being around them I subconsciously was not attracted to them. I met probably a few girls when I was in middle and high school that had both traits and I tried my luck at them but of course, I did not succeed.
Before any of you who are reading go on to disagree or think of me as shallow, I just would like to say in my defense that girls who don't wear Jordan's are NOT ugly to me. I do not think girls are horrible romantic partners based off their shoes, I just automatically have this bias towards girls who do wear Jordan's versus the ones who do not when it comes to finding out if I would like to have a romantic relationship with her or not. There has been times where I meet a girl who wears Jordan's but as soon as I get to know her, I find out the hard way that she is NOT what I am looking for in a partner. There's just something about those shoes that really attract me and plenty of other guys. In the culture of loving shoes, I would say in some cases that shoes can literally make someone physically attracted to someone, I am a product of that theory. The reason I went into such detail with that is because it follows one of the four filters in Duck's Theory.
Duck's theory does make sense to me because I do agree that in order for a relationship to occur, these steps are usually taken, sociological cue, preinteraction cues, interaction cues, cognitive cues. The reason why it makes sense to me is because when I look at my own relationship I have with my girlfriend, we went through this process. We liked the fact that we both went to college, we lived within a minute drive from eachother, our body language did not conflict with eachother's, we were able to hold conversations for long periods of time without any awkwardness and we were open to each other with our own values and beliefs.
When it comes to whether or not I have eliminated sociological or preinteration cues only to reconsider a girl based only on interaction and cognitive cues, I would say yes, very much so. Before I ever got into the relationship I am currently in, I was considering talking to girls who lived far away and/or had body language that did not compliment my own (the way she dressed vs the way I dressed) and only considered in a romantic relationship with them because of the way we were able to talk to each other an enjoy each others company. It obviously did not work out because of the living situation, but that's more than OK with me because I am very happy in the relationship I have now. =P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greetings Kirk. I must say, throughout the entire semester, you have always had some of the most thoughtful and insightful (not to mention longest) posts of all the ones I read. I have even found myself guilty of regularly replying to your threads, possibly because I know I will like what I read.
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. I enjoy how you relate Duck's theory to your personal relationship. This real-world application always helps me understand the concepts and principles that we learn of in our text. I also appreciate your honesty in admitting at times your pre-interaction and sociological cues can alter your perception of consideration of romantic interests. People are so worried about being "politically correct" it is nice to see someone who just speaks his mind.