Visual Identification in Typing

[Beautiful sky]

As I (and many others) have told you before - you're looking for the wrong thing. It's not efficient at all, because all you're getting is guys who you think are some particular type (LSE in this case.) You're missing EVERYTHING important, and focusing on something that doesn't even matter. As long as you continue that approach, the best you can hope for is a stroke of good luck.

Yeah just because I gave one lose who turned out to be not such a great person doesn't mean they are all bad.

[squark]

Yeah just because I gave one lose who turned out to be not such a great person doesn't mean they are all bad.

That's not what I was saying at all. My point was that picking guys based on type or perceived type really brings the whole thing down to luck, because you're discounting everything that might actually matter in a relationship. In other words - you randomly grab 50 LSEs, using only their type and nothing else to choose them - the chance that you'll actually find a guy who's good for you and a good match with you is just that - purely chance. There are so many many different variables in any person - so many things beyond type, and most things not at all connected to type that matter. Type doesn't matter so much, and doesn't matter at all if you're not looking at anything else. Might as well roll some dice to decide.

Think of it this way: the chance that you find any one quality in a person is always greater than the chance that you'll find that quality AND another quality also. As in, the chance that a person has brown eyes is ALWAYS greater than the chance that a person has brown eyes AND blonde hair (given that there is no trait linkage which hey let's not complicate things.)

So, the chance that a guy will for instance be a nice person is always greater than the chance that he'll be a nice person AND an LSE. Or going the other way around - the chance that he'll be an LSE AND a nice person is always less than that he'll be one OR the other. Your focus is on - LSE. You're not focused on any kind of character trait whatsoever. You're not looking at any kinds of actual qualities of the dude - so the chance that you'll get an LSE with qualities that you want through that approach is less than the chance you'd get a guy with qualities that you want period. You're looking at the wrong thing. You're making the wrong thing important, and so lessening your chance that you'll get the right thing.

[Beautiful sky]

That's not what I was saying at all. My point was that picking guys based on type or perceived type really brings the whole thing down to luck, because you're discounting everything that might actually matter in a relationship. In other words - you randomly grab 50 LSEs, using only their type and nothing else to choose them - the chance that you'll actually find a guy who's good for you and a good match with you is just that - purely chance. There are so many many different variables in any person - so many things beyond type, and most things not at all connected to type that matter. Type doesn't matter so much, and doesn't matter at all if you're not looking at anything else. Might as well roll some dice to decide.

Think of it this way: the chance that you find any one quality in a person is always greater than the chance that you'll find that quality AND another quality also. As in, the chance that a person has brown eyes is ALWAYS greater than the chance that a person has brown eyes AND blonde hair (given that there is no trait linkage which hey let's not complicate things.)

So, the chance that a guy will for instance be a nice person is always greater than the chance that he'll be a nice person AND an LSE. Or going the other way around - the chance that he'll be an LSE AND a nice person is always less than that he'll be one OR the other. Your focus is on - LSE. You're not focused on any kind of character trait whatsoever. You're not looking at any kinds of actual qualities of the dude - so the chance that you'll get an LSE with qualities that you want through that approach is less than the chance you'd get a guy with qualities that you want period. You're looking at the wrong thing. You're making the wrong thing important, and so lessening your chance that you'll get the right thing.

I understand what you're saying, but to me this is what I choose. I've talked this over extensively with my dual cousin, who is instrumental in my decision making process. She and I both agree that what I'm going to do is best for me.

I focus on character, traits, attitude a lot; just because I haven't talked about how I felt with the last LSE I was with and you didn't read me talk about it doesn't mean I haven't given that a lot of thought.