You never tell me you love me

One of the most frustrating arguments to watch goes something like this:

“You never tell me you love me.”

“Of course I love you. Everybody knows I love you. I talk about you all the time.”

“But you never tell me that you love me.”

That middle line, the “Of course I love you. …”? That’ll be spoken by a male. It won’t matter if this is a gay or straight relationship because males, as a group, aren’t good at verbal communications.

And when those verbal communications are about feelings and emotions, ie, about making one’s self vulnerable?


What’s fascinating about this is that the male’s last sentence, “I talk about you all the time.”, is probably quite true. Men, as a group, will share information with other male or mixed gender peer groups gladly.

Note the use of “groups” in the above.

That’s the kicker; Men will talk up their partners in peer groups gladly, loudly, proudly and unequivocally. But one-on-one, in an intimate verbal moment? Not so much.

The disconnect here is that people like to hear that they’re special, that they’re loved, that someone special feels for them as they feel for that someone special.

Fortunately there are ways to reconnect. Does your significant other male lack verbal skills? Ask them to write you a love note. Nothing elaborate, just something for you to keep and hold to yourself. Most men are happy to do so (although sometimes trust can be an issue. Promise not to share it with anybody). Their prose may be a little rough, a little awkward, and remember, it’s a start.

Give them time. They’ll be bringing you flowers, taking you out to dinner, the movies, and generally courting you all over again soon enough.

Posted in , , , , , ,

You smell so good to me (Matings Bonus)

Continuing with the thread introduced yesterday in You Smell Funny, we discovered some more research about how humans non-consciously use their olfactory sense (sense of smell) for mating purposes (like dating, finding the one you love, finding the one you’ll love once versus forever, finding the “me love you good Charlie, me make you happy long time”, all that kind of stuff) and thought to share it because we know you’re all out there just dying to know…

Guys and gals, are you in the courting/flirting/tension release stage of a relationship? You may tell yourself you’re looking for someone long time and if, in your heart of hearts, you know you’re only looking for someone short term, go to the ones who are heavily perfumed/masked/scented. They won’t disappoint.

It turns out that one aspect of our evolutionary heritage is to emit scents that let potential mates know our fecundity (“The state of being fertile; capable of producing offspring”).

And here’s the interesting way this has gotten disabused in most modern societies; We now lather and immerse ourselves in baths, oils, perfumes and such to mask the very scent that would tell the world, “Hey there hiya how you doin, I’m a’ waitin’ and ready!”

But wait, it gets better.

Those individuals who so obviously lather and immerse themselves? Consciously or not (we’re betting on not) are trying to signal potential mates’ olfactory senses that they would be a good long term catch when studies show they’re not good long term catches at all. Quite the contrary. At least on average.

But what about those folks who don’t put a lot of effort into masking their natural fragrances?

It turns out that on average the men and women who don’t lather and immerse themselves, who are subtle in their use of perfumes and colognes and such, are the ones who are consciously or not (again, we’re betting on not) signalling that they are genuinely good keepers, worth the effort and will be fruitful (in more ways than one) long term investments.

Canis Major (A Tale Told 'Round Celestial Campfires), by Joseph carrabisIf any of you have read Canis Major in either its Kindle or Tales Told ‘Round Celestial Campfires form, you may remember that it was Sherry’s subtle use of perfume that drew Iggie to her.

And, in the end, he was quite the catch.

So, ladies and gents, are you looking for someone to be with you throughout the years regardless of what life brings you?

Sniff out someone who uses fabricated scents at their minimum, to hint and suggest.

Are you looking for someone for an hour to a week or month at most?

They won’t be subtle. They’ll have applied their favorite scent with a housepainter’s brush.

Posted in , , , ,

dishymix guest blogger joseph carrabis answers dave evans ceo of digital voodoos question about male executives weilding social media influence on par with female executives

[[This is a resurrected post from another blog. We’re ressurecting it because J references it in Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation.]]

Dave Evans asked:

I hear a lot about female intuition and influence, and about male command and control. As marketers transition from traditional media, which I’d consider to be control-centric, to Social Media that is clearly all about influence this discussion becomes more important. Given that are more than few female executives are running top-flight agencies and media units, women can evidently “learn” to operate quite effectively from a position of control versus influence. My question is “Will men be able to do the reverse? Will male executives be able to move comfortably into Social Media, where control is replaced with influence?

And I replied:

Wow! Great Question. Very perceptive. Truly.
Also quite easy to answer: No. Not really. At least not easily. Definitely no for the majority of American males. Probably also no for lots of British Commonwealth males. Asian males most easily. Southern EU males probably. Northern EU males yes and only with a little work. South American males yes and with some fascinating variations.
This is a really good question. How much time do we have for me to explain the easy answer? I had complete grad courses, master classes and post-docs that dealt with the roots of this question.

Now let me share the intriguing piece; there’s a whole class of American males that will be able to make this move without hesitation.

This is one of those questions with a core that touches so much of what’s going on today. Why are GM, Ford, etc., losing business and closing plants? See the above. Why are EU based car companies (even the ones that are subsidiaries of US companies) surviving? See the above. Why do Americans donate organs at 28% and the French at 99.9%? See the above. Why is determining proper marketing resources allocation so difficult? See the above.

I know I wrote a minor thesis in answer to the previous question. This question is much richer and really deserves a full day to explain in detail why the “easy answer” is what it is.

If anybody’s interested, let me know.

I wasn’t satisfied with my answer to Dave Evans’ question. I believe my answer was accurate and verifiable, what it lacked was actionability and the thread of understanding that I so love weaving into my explanations. People who’ve seen my presentations and such would agree (I hope) that I provide take-aways, things participants can do to get real results (actionability). One of the things I hold myself to is providing both theory and application in an explanation. Also, I tie lots of disparate things together so that they make sense. One student wrote an evaluation of a seminar I gave and included “…you’ve got to hang in there until the punch line. Some other things that Carrabis comes up with can seem absolutely dotty in the beginning. You may have the urge to throw up your hands, walk out and find somebody who makes sense. Some of the folks in the last class did that. They managed to miss some of the most mind blowing educational experiences they could have had.”

Whether due to jet lag, a chocolate-beer-wine high (I wrote that response while I was in Brussels on business) or whatever, my response to Dave wasn’t a completely satisfying one to me and I’m notoriously hard to please.

So please allow me to provide a follow-up response to Dave’s question. It’s going to pull from a bunch of different disciplines (I am Joseph Carrabis after all. If I answer a question without involving half a dozen disciplines people will think it’s not really me responding) but how else can it be thorough?

Let’s start with the idea that men and women think differently. If you disagree with that premise you can stop reading now. The question becomes how do men and women think differently and how does that difference affect things like cognitive, behavioral/effective and motivational (“{C,B/e,M}” for short) demonstrations and methodologies.

Males in our society and up to about the mid-1990s pretty much dominated the “hard” sciences. The reason for this goes back to the cultural cues we gave boys and girls up until the last quarter of the last century. These cultural cues can best be summed up in a couple of simple statements; boys usually had to “prove” things, girls didn’t.

This “proof” took the form of what behaviorists call “dominance games” and it’s why boys got into fights more often than girls (with all due respect to the recent YouTube girlfight videos phenomena). The {C,B/e,M} reinforced by dominance games was something already well prevalent in western society and is demonstrated by the majority of governments and very definitely in US courts — the adversarial system. Someone is “right” because they have the most money, most influence, most votes, etc. This may seem like Dave’s “influence” proposition and I offer that this is not the case. What is happening is what’s called “coherence”, not influence.

The difference is critical to answering Dave’s question and the surrogate questions that fall from it. Coherence is a logical construct. Things cohere because the mutual benefit is increased control (using Dave’s term) of the whole and recognition of individual control elements (we know who to blame when things mung up). Pieces stuck together allows action on one piece to control direction, acceleration, velocity, etc., of all pieces via that one piece unless sufficient social or mechanical force is applied to break the “control” piece off. Coherence is lost in these cases. Examples of this kind of decoherence are well known in the be-all and end-all of boy’s dominance games — military science. The extreme hierarchical system of control and coherence — the “chain of command” — means that by taking out individuals closer and closer to the top of the hierarchy greater and greater decoherence occurs.

Note that there is not influence as I understand Dave’s use of the term. Influence recognizes that one or more pieces might go in completely different directions than the “control” piece because the relationships between the pieces are tenuous (from a physical mechanics perspective) and based on mutually beneficial relationships (from a social perspective).

Women have traditionally been taught to use a different strategy called (surprise!) “correspondence”. The principle difference between the two is that coherence is a logical construct, correspondence is an ecological construct.

Correspondence (surprise! part 2) gains its power via its ability to influence change (and this is what I think Dave means by his use of the term) rather than create or direct change (the coherence methodology).

Ecological constructs may have hierarchies inside them (food chains, for example) and even when they do there’s a much higher degree of balance (think of a wind mobile) involved. Food chains can’t have pieces of the hierarchy removed because ecological/environmental destruction ensues (think of the over-fishing of the oceans, destruction of the rain-forests, increasing rates of species extinction, …). A wind mobile with a single element removed just clatters in the breeze, the balance that created the sensoral harmony is gone.

And if you’ve intuited that this ecological construct, correspondence, is based on, uses and creates relationships, you’ve already figured things out. For the rest of you, please hang in there. We’re getting close to the punch line.

Each strategy is useful in certain arenas. Correspondence allows for distributed action, mutual acceptance, group loyalty, … — the things that traditional women’s societies are best known for. Coherence allows for quicker action, surgical action, directed response, … — the things that traditional men’s societies are best known for.

With this informational foundation we can really get interesting. Ecological constructs are highly adaptive. This is the “Life will out” syndrome. Given enough time, life will return to any environment regardless of how much destruction has taken place. In many cases, life will adapt itself to thrive on the destruction to bring the environment back to some kind of recognizable ecological balance. These highly adaptive systems are highly adaptive because they rely on heuristic calculations rather than statistical calculations (what? You thought I wouldn’t get math involved somehow?). (Not a plug coming up, just part of the explanation) NextStage’s Evolution Technology does what it does by using statistical methods when there’s enough data, otherwise use heuristic methods.

What’s the difference? Statistical methods will determine an optimal solution, heuristic methods will determine a best outcome given the existing data. Optimal solutions are only optimal when well defined outcomes exist. Heuristic solutions are the best possible outcomes for everyone/everything involved in the process.

The biggest problem with statistical methods is the gi-normous amount of data necessary to truly determine optimal solutions. Very few companies/agencies/individuals have enough data to determine optimal solutions yet they still use traditional statistical methods and fail as often (or close to as often) as they succeed. Very few organizations use heuristic methods (I’m not even sure organizations know these tools exist).

What’s amusing about this is that a traditional scientific axiom — Occam’s Razor — is actually a heuristic. Occam’s Razor instructs us to go with the simplest solution when in doubt. This is a restatement of the “fluency heuristic” that instructs us to go with what we know rather than what we don’t. Our minds are wired to accept as simple those things we already know or have in consciousness.

What comes to the surface in all this is that women are allowed to use heuristics and men are not. Women can say “I felt like it” or “I thought it was right” and have it accepted as a reasonably response both by other women and by men. Men usually do not have this luxury because their cultural training is coherence, not correspondence.

Correspondence, by the way, along with the heuristics that power it, are what is sometimes referred to as “intuition” or in this case what Dave calls “female intuition”.

So will the majority of men be able to move into relationship marketing? Not unless they’re ready, willing and able to consider heuristic business models and up until about 1990 our society didn’t allow for it. Are there any males in business that can make the switch to relationship marketing? Yes. Quite specifically those who ascended a business hierarchy by “going with their gut”, ie, intuition.

Posted in , , ,