thedrifter
01-06-05, 06:58 AM
Romance Lessons from Tsunami Animals
January 6, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Marc H. Rudov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read story after story about the horrible devastation, death, and disease from the Indian Ocean tsunami, I am increasingly amazed by one consistent report, aside from the tragedy itself and usual criticism of the United States: no animal casualties. At the moment I am writing this piece, about 150,000 people have died, but not ONE animal! Every narrative seems to indicate that the animals—those living above and below ground—“sensed” the tremors, or signals, of the tsunami and ran for cover.
Some Sri Lankans, on the other hand, saw the tide mysteriously ebb 1000 feet from the shore (a result of the temporary vacuum created by the tsunami-causing earthquake) and chose to frolic in the “extended” beach. The returning 30-foot-high tidal wave crushed those unfortunate souls. It may sound coarse to ask, but how could these people not know what the animals know: if tides ebb anomalously, don’t they flow anomalously?
Further investigation taught me that this phenomenon of animals accurately sensing impending environmental disasters has been recorded throughout history. If we humans are supposed to be derived from animals, why do so many of us lack this ability to read signals, especially in romantic situations? For the anti-evolution fundamentalists, this may be good evidence that we aren’t the animals’ cousins.
Maybe, though, the sensory capabilities of both animals and humans adapt to circumstances. Look, for example, at the difference in behavior between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If you tame a wild animal, as is done for a circus act, you cannot return it to the jungle—it will be unable to defend itself. By the same token, if you take a field-oriented person—like a CIA agent or member of the US Army Special Forces or Navy SEALs, who depends on his wits and physical prowess for survival—and put him long enough in an office, in front of a desk, his field career is finished. He’ll lose his sensory edge.
When Americans fought the Revolutionary War, almost 225 years ago, they had to learn from the cagey, wily American Indians, who were experts at reading and leveraging their surroundings, how to defeat the formal, distant, regimented British. People on the front lines—with their “ears to the ground,” to borrow a phrase from Native Americans—whether soldiers, quarterbacks, or salespeople, epitomize dependency on sensory skills for survival and success. Yet, I’ve heard top salespeople and quarterbacks admit to having zero ability to read women. Go figure. They don’t realize their own talents. To them, women are just plain intimidating. Why? Trying to ski a black-diamond trail after your first lesson—that’s intimidating!
One of the reasons I enjoy my trips to the gym is that it is such fertile ground for article ideas. I listen to people’s stories, and I often write about what they describe to me. Recently, in the space of one week, I heard two good ones. In one situation, a woman told me she is clueless about reading signals from men, causing her to enter relationships she cannot fathom. In the second one, a guy told me he is so enamored of a particular female gym patron, one of extreme beauty and poise, that he would rather pay $1000 to have sex with her than to seduce her with his personal power. This guy is an executive at a major corporation; yet, with a beautiful woman, he doesn’t have the self-confidence to navigate a social interaction. These two examples signify how poorly developed skills to transmit and receive signals can inhibit pleasure and, in fact, cause significant turmoil and pain. I hear similar stories, told repeatedly with unlimited variations, in the letters I receive from readers of my book.
Next time you go to a party, grab a drink and plant yourself in a corner to observe the range of personalities. You will notice the wallflowers who eat, drink, and stare. Then, there are the men who talk only to their buddies and the women who talk only to their girlfriends. In another group are the men who talk awkwardly to women but never get anywhere. Let’s not forget the women so insecure they would never deign to initiate conversations with men, choosing instead to await men’s approaches, as if to hold court with them. Finally, there are the men and women who approach each other without thinking and mix with ease because they are masters of signal management. In essence, there is no difference between one’s ability to operate in a social setting and in a foreign country. In both cases, the master of communication will have the easiest and best experiences.
When a man and woman speak for the first time, whether on the telephone or in person, they are sending and receiving signals to each other—about athletic compatibility, communication compatibility, cultural compatibility, ethics compatibility, etiquette compatibility, emotional compatibility, financial compatibility, hobbies compatibility, life-philosophy compatibility, logic compatibility, mental compatibility, musical compatibility, physical compatibility, political compatibility, professional compatibility, recreation compatibility, religious compatibility, sexual compatibility, style compatibility, etc.
A woman recently told me that, before I had asked her about this topic, she never even thought about what kind of man is compatible with her. Her typical routine was to just “get involved.” Our conversation made her realize why her relationships were so dissatisfying. I was incredulous, but she was serious.
After being burned many times, most people realize that lasting, genuine attraction is based on compatibility in the critical areas. Each person must decide for herself what is critical and what is secondary—but she must decide and hold to it. So, it is absolutely mandatory for our potential lovers meeting for the first time to perceive correctly their respective signals and decide whether they are compatible—before jumping into bed. If they are blind to or ignore the signals flying back and forth, they can become mistakenly involved and dysfunctionally stuck together.
It strikes me as ironic that humans are deemed the superior inhabitants of this planet, yet we are so stupid in a fundamental way. Animals know they must flee their whereabouts when they sense signals from Mother Nature such as abnormal ground vibrations and changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, atmospheric pressure, and temperature. What’s more important: they heed these signals, unlike people too dense to know if their so-called paramours are really into them!
So, how can people determine whether they have chemistry? What signals can they discern from each other to validate approval or disapproval from across the table? How can people avoid the pain and agony of pursuing hot relationships with others who are cold or lukewarm to them? Well, there are complete books on this subject, so I won’t try to reinvent the wheel here. But, there are basic signals people must be looking for to judge the temperature of the meeting. Let’s say, for example, that the two potential lovers are face-to-face discussing the 2004 Presidential Election. These basic verbal and nonverbal cues, mutually coming from both parties, indicate whether they will get along:
High-Attraction Signals
Genuine, constant laughter (high attraction)
Strong eye contact (high attraction)
Joke-cracking (high attraction)
Sexual innuendos (high attraction)
Light-hearted verbal sparring (high attraction)
Physical touching (high interest)
Complimentary (high interest)
Constant hints of getting together again (high attraction)
Low-Attraction Signals
Nervous laughter (discomfort)
Topic avoidance (discomfort)
Subject-changing (discomfort)
Constant shifting in the chair (discomfort)
Shrill debate (discomfort, disagreement)
Answering but not asking questions (uninterested/uninteresting)
Leaning back and/or turned sideways in chair (discomfort)
Incessant talk about former loves (uninterested/uninteresting)
This discussion may seem elementary and pedantic to some, but enough people go home after their first dates and say to their friends: “I’m not really sure he/she liked me.” How can that be? It’s even worse when the same experience occurs after the second and third dates! Such uncertainty is possible only if people cannot read each other’s signals.
The seventh chapter of my book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth, is called The Octopus Tango. It’s all about the dangers of not carefully screening upfront for compatibility, before allowing yourself to get involved. As with two tentacle-locked octopi, two mismatched lovers will find it extremely tough to pull apart. Sound familiar? Maybe this happened to someone you know? The high divorce rate is a direct result of people failing to screen each other properly.
We humans have a lot to learn from the other inhabitants of this planet: the animals. We must train ourselves to identify, filter, and decipher signals. It is just as pathetic when a guy doggedly pursues an uninterested woman as when a woman sits by the phone, waiting for a guy who doesn’t call. Get real, folks. When people are interested, they consistently show it—with words and actions. Don’t make excuses for undemonstrative people. What you see is what you get. When questioning whether someone wants you, would you prefer black & white or gray signals? Accept only black & white signals, and act accordingly. To be consistent and honest, only send black & white signals.
If the soldier misreads or ignores signals, he gets shot, maybe killed. If the quarterback misreads or ignores signals, he gets sacked, maybe stripped of the football. If you, the lover, misread or ignore signals, you will be hurt, disappointed, or maybe even hit by a romantic “tsunami.” Afterwards, there will be no excuse for asking, How did that happen?
Marc H. Rudov
Ellie
January 6, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Marc H. Rudov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I read story after story about the horrible devastation, death, and disease from the Indian Ocean tsunami, I am increasingly amazed by one consistent report, aside from the tragedy itself and usual criticism of the United States: no animal casualties. At the moment I am writing this piece, about 150,000 people have died, but not ONE animal! Every narrative seems to indicate that the animals—those living above and below ground—“sensed” the tremors, or signals, of the tsunami and ran for cover.
Some Sri Lankans, on the other hand, saw the tide mysteriously ebb 1000 feet from the shore (a result of the temporary vacuum created by the tsunami-causing earthquake) and chose to frolic in the “extended” beach. The returning 30-foot-high tidal wave crushed those unfortunate souls. It may sound coarse to ask, but how could these people not know what the animals know: if tides ebb anomalously, don’t they flow anomalously?
Further investigation taught me that this phenomenon of animals accurately sensing impending environmental disasters has been recorded throughout history. If we humans are supposed to be derived from animals, why do so many of us lack this ability to read signals, especially in romantic situations? For the anti-evolution fundamentalists, this may be good evidence that we aren’t the animals’ cousins.
Maybe, though, the sensory capabilities of both animals and humans adapt to circumstances. Look, for example, at the difference in behavior between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If you tame a wild animal, as is done for a circus act, you cannot return it to the jungle—it will be unable to defend itself. By the same token, if you take a field-oriented person—like a CIA agent or member of the US Army Special Forces or Navy SEALs, who depends on his wits and physical prowess for survival—and put him long enough in an office, in front of a desk, his field career is finished. He’ll lose his sensory edge.
When Americans fought the Revolutionary War, almost 225 years ago, they had to learn from the cagey, wily American Indians, who were experts at reading and leveraging their surroundings, how to defeat the formal, distant, regimented British. People on the front lines—with their “ears to the ground,” to borrow a phrase from Native Americans—whether soldiers, quarterbacks, or salespeople, epitomize dependency on sensory skills for survival and success. Yet, I’ve heard top salespeople and quarterbacks admit to having zero ability to read women. Go figure. They don’t realize their own talents. To them, women are just plain intimidating. Why? Trying to ski a black-diamond trail after your first lesson—that’s intimidating!
One of the reasons I enjoy my trips to the gym is that it is such fertile ground for article ideas. I listen to people’s stories, and I often write about what they describe to me. Recently, in the space of one week, I heard two good ones. In one situation, a woman told me she is clueless about reading signals from men, causing her to enter relationships she cannot fathom. In the second one, a guy told me he is so enamored of a particular female gym patron, one of extreme beauty and poise, that he would rather pay $1000 to have sex with her than to seduce her with his personal power. This guy is an executive at a major corporation; yet, with a beautiful woman, he doesn’t have the self-confidence to navigate a social interaction. These two examples signify how poorly developed skills to transmit and receive signals can inhibit pleasure and, in fact, cause significant turmoil and pain. I hear similar stories, told repeatedly with unlimited variations, in the letters I receive from readers of my book.
Next time you go to a party, grab a drink and plant yourself in a corner to observe the range of personalities. You will notice the wallflowers who eat, drink, and stare. Then, there are the men who talk only to their buddies and the women who talk only to their girlfriends. In another group are the men who talk awkwardly to women but never get anywhere. Let’s not forget the women so insecure they would never deign to initiate conversations with men, choosing instead to await men’s approaches, as if to hold court with them. Finally, there are the men and women who approach each other without thinking and mix with ease because they are masters of signal management. In essence, there is no difference between one’s ability to operate in a social setting and in a foreign country. In both cases, the master of communication will have the easiest and best experiences.
When a man and woman speak for the first time, whether on the telephone or in person, they are sending and receiving signals to each other—about athletic compatibility, communication compatibility, cultural compatibility, ethics compatibility, etiquette compatibility, emotional compatibility, financial compatibility, hobbies compatibility, life-philosophy compatibility, logic compatibility, mental compatibility, musical compatibility, physical compatibility, political compatibility, professional compatibility, recreation compatibility, religious compatibility, sexual compatibility, style compatibility, etc.
A woman recently told me that, before I had asked her about this topic, she never even thought about what kind of man is compatible with her. Her typical routine was to just “get involved.” Our conversation made her realize why her relationships were so dissatisfying. I was incredulous, but she was serious.
After being burned many times, most people realize that lasting, genuine attraction is based on compatibility in the critical areas. Each person must decide for herself what is critical and what is secondary—but she must decide and hold to it. So, it is absolutely mandatory for our potential lovers meeting for the first time to perceive correctly their respective signals and decide whether they are compatible—before jumping into bed. If they are blind to or ignore the signals flying back and forth, they can become mistakenly involved and dysfunctionally stuck together.
It strikes me as ironic that humans are deemed the superior inhabitants of this planet, yet we are so stupid in a fundamental way. Animals know they must flee their whereabouts when they sense signals from Mother Nature such as abnormal ground vibrations and changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, atmospheric pressure, and temperature. What’s more important: they heed these signals, unlike people too dense to know if their so-called paramours are really into them!
So, how can people determine whether they have chemistry? What signals can they discern from each other to validate approval or disapproval from across the table? How can people avoid the pain and agony of pursuing hot relationships with others who are cold or lukewarm to them? Well, there are complete books on this subject, so I won’t try to reinvent the wheel here. But, there are basic signals people must be looking for to judge the temperature of the meeting. Let’s say, for example, that the two potential lovers are face-to-face discussing the 2004 Presidential Election. These basic verbal and nonverbal cues, mutually coming from both parties, indicate whether they will get along:
High-Attraction Signals
Genuine, constant laughter (high attraction)
Strong eye contact (high attraction)
Joke-cracking (high attraction)
Sexual innuendos (high attraction)
Light-hearted verbal sparring (high attraction)
Physical touching (high interest)
Complimentary (high interest)
Constant hints of getting together again (high attraction)
Low-Attraction Signals
Nervous laughter (discomfort)
Topic avoidance (discomfort)
Subject-changing (discomfort)
Constant shifting in the chair (discomfort)
Shrill debate (discomfort, disagreement)
Answering but not asking questions (uninterested/uninteresting)
Leaning back and/or turned sideways in chair (discomfort)
Incessant talk about former loves (uninterested/uninteresting)
This discussion may seem elementary and pedantic to some, but enough people go home after their first dates and say to their friends: “I’m not really sure he/she liked me.” How can that be? It’s even worse when the same experience occurs after the second and third dates! Such uncertainty is possible only if people cannot read each other’s signals.
The seventh chapter of my book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth, is called The Octopus Tango. It’s all about the dangers of not carefully screening upfront for compatibility, before allowing yourself to get involved. As with two tentacle-locked octopi, two mismatched lovers will find it extremely tough to pull apart. Sound familiar? Maybe this happened to someone you know? The high divorce rate is a direct result of people failing to screen each other properly.
We humans have a lot to learn from the other inhabitants of this planet: the animals. We must train ourselves to identify, filter, and decipher signals. It is just as pathetic when a guy doggedly pursues an uninterested woman as when a woman sits by the phone, waiting for a guy who doesn’t call. Get real, folks. When people are interested, they consistently show it—with words and actions. Don’t make excuses for undemonstrative people. What you see is what you get. When questioning whether someone wants you, would you prefer black & white or gray signals? Accept only black & white signals, and act accordingly. To be consistent and honest, only send black & white signals.
If the soldier misreads or ignores signals, he gets shot, maybe killed. If the quarterback misreads or ignores signals, he gets sacked, maybe stripped of the football. If you, the lover, misread or ignore signals, you will be hurt, disappointed, or maybe even hit by a romantic “tsunami.” Afterwards, there will be no excuse for asking, How did that happen?
Marc H. Rudov
Ellie