IATA, TIFU: Protocols for Dating Less-frequent Communicators

Prologue: while this is about dating, you may find the article helpful in your other types of interactions with people, in the context of the anti-pattern described below.

---

TIFU (again) - so I am writing to remind myself about ... how to talk to people who don't like to talk as much as I do.

This is the fourth or six time I've made this error with partners. It's a specific type of error, pertaining to a specific type of partner, and it's due of course to specific structures in myself. Given the latest data set, I am writing a review of the situation for formal reference.

Anti-pattern:

Here's the problem statement. I don't like being in relationships which end without communication. That's the worse case - another case which is also bad, but less bad, is relationships which end without negotiation.

Pro-pattern:

I prefer relationships which result in perpetual, communicative, friendships. I prefer stages of a relationship to be mapped out with contingencies and few surprises. I prefer to know how things will proceed, and how they will end.

I don't intend to portray this type of partner as "deficient" in talent or personality - rather I hope only to describe their behaviours and motivations as natural phenomena. I do intend to portray my ability to interface with those phenomena as deficient ... since I have the freedom to do so without offending anyone but myself.

Anti-pattern Candidates:

The anti-pattern is typically exhibited by partners who are highly protective of their allotment of memory for social cognition, such that they may prefer zero communication with low-priority counterparties, and even to forget that such past contacts ever existed. For this note, I shall refer to people with a predisposition to such behaviour as anti-pattern candidates (APCs).

 

APCs may be aware of their own anti-pattern predisposition, or unaware. To be clear, any such predispositions may not be viewed as undesirable traits by the APC, as they may not view such behaviour as undesirable. We must affirm the freedom of each individual to choose who they want to be, and we must celebrate such people and their freedoms, and the affirmation of those freedoms.

Self-aware Anti-pattern Candidates:

For this note, let's abbreviate these to Sa-APCs.

Self-unaware Anti-pattern Candidates:

For this note, let's abbreviate these to Su-APCs.

This working taxonomy is sufficient for us to go a little deeper into an examination of the motivations for APCs, and the tactics and strategies which we can employ in avoiding the anti-pattern.

Pre-engagement (Stage of Intervention):

In personal advertisements (profiles), and in interviews both over text and in person, I typically address this concern of mine, blatantly. I highlight my preference for:

• verbal exposition over guesswork 
• low-context culture over high-context culture  
•  ("common sense" is regarded as bad)
• protocol over empathy 
• (both in a consensual, symmetrically fashion between partners)

Usually this helps to weed out many APCs, both self-aware and self-unaware. However, some APCs are going to make it past this stage, nonetheless. Both types of APC may be distracted by the novelty of a relationship such that their predisposition towards the anti-pattern remains buried during the early stages of courtship.

More specifically, Sa-APCs may at this point intentionally hide their predisposition, for strategic reasons, as they actually want to deploy the anti-pattern latter. (One could label this as malicious behaviour, or simply as "fair game".)

Let's move on!

Engagement (Stage of Intervention):

Once a relationship is well under way with an APC, then there is only so much I can do to stave off an anti-pattern incident (API). Often, by definition, an API is inevitable once the APC decides to officially disengage from myself - I take as 'the cost of doing business", and fortunately so-far most of these little heartbreaks have been reparable. 

Conservatively / defensively: Since by definition in this process, we have not yet determined whether any counterparty in an ongoing relationship is or is not an APC, we should defensively presume that all counterparties in all ongoing relationships are APCs.

Common precursors to an API seem to be as follows:

• The APC becomes stressed, due to external or internal events. 
• Commonly this happens as their work gets busier, or if certain life events alter the balance of their mental resources. 
• I would want all my counterparties to receive my full support in their conflicts with external forces, but providing this support in a welcome fashion is challenging, as a stressed APC is very likely to reach an API, and simply eject a relationship from memory, in order to gain a sense of mastery over their current state of complexity.
• In some cases however, I am the direct cause of stress. This possibility cannot be denied by any transparent and self-aware actor, such as which I hope to be.

Defensive measures that can be established, to minimise the probability of APIs:

• At every opportunity, discuss each counterparty's sources of stress.
• Based on these inquiries, build a vulnerability model of the counterparty.
• Note that such inquiries themselves may be sources of stress, and this must be taken into explicit account in any model.
• As early as possible in any relationship, establish a communications protocol.
• The protocol should pay particular attention to informing participants about stress arising from the very act of communicating, in and of itself. We can draw inspiration from common network protocols, as these have emerged from the natural structure of information and communications in general. Transmission control is important. 
• Some metrics which may be useful:
• Main forms
• How often should I send you a message? (Refer to: SYN - synchronisation request)
• How long should I wait before sending you another message? (Refer to: exponential back-offs, ACK - acknowledgement of request)
• What are the different ways to send you a message? 
• Which methods are you never receptive to?
• Which methods are you usually receptive to?
• (Refer to: love languages, as a practical model - different media are available for communication. In each medium, are there specific tokens you particularly appreciate? Or hate? (e.g. chocolate, morning greetings)
•  Circumstantial Variations on main forms
• The main forms may be considered the metrics to be referred to under "normal circumstances"
• Broadly, what categories of circumstances result in irrelevance of the main forms? For example, if work gets busier than (X metric), then we are under "abnormal circumstances" and so new metrics are required. If possible, we want to anticipate different categories of circumstances, ways to signal when when we are entering difference sets of circumstances, such that each party can adjust their SYNs and ACKs accordingly.