Random stuff about me (OkCupid, etc.)

From a (too) long draft of message I put together to send somone on OkCupid. I’ve stripped out pretty much anything about them that might reasonably be personally identifiable … and … about same for myself – but all-in-all, that doesn’t remove all that much, and may still make for a rather – perhaps even quite – interesting/informative read? I used <…> and the like, for bits I redacted or in general made a bit more generic / less identifiable.

I do quite like your profile. Hope you may like mine too – or at least find it of interest? Maybe I can help you <…> Not that I’m necessarily looking for a “date” or “dating” per se, anyway.

(Your) “I’m looking for”, some selected things on your profile I quite note (among many I quite like), etc. …

“For new friends” <…> – yes, definitely, me too – and that first and foremost. Make it well to there – well – if that happens (a rather non-trivial if), then can figure things out from there (e.g. if there’s mutual interest/compatibility beyond “friends” … and if there’s not, “just friends” can be quite fine/excellent too). Of course too, it’s very possible to quite (even very deeply) love one’s friends – doesn’t necessarily entail or require anything beyond “just” friends (if that’s even an adequate/fitting word in that case – but for lack of better jumping to mind).
<bit about only interested in local and long-term> – yes, too, I quite agree.
<friendship (first)> – absolutely.
<not looking for casual sex and/or just sex> – quite (if sex is even on “the list”, it’s definitely not at the top … okay, it’s *somewhere* on the list, … I think? Where did I put that list? Oh, … it’s filed under prerequisite conditions for ;-))
<not casual sex> – highly agree. OkCupid has a “box” for that. And both of us did *not* check *that* box.
<passion, connection, etc.> – definitely, … at least for certain definitions of “passionate” and “connection” …
<sex bits?> Not necessarily goin’ there … but not necessarily outside the realm of possibilities, either.

<personality type>:-) That’s generally quite cool. When I took the test on OkCupid, I came out ISTJ:
But at least that time I took it, both the N and J came rather to quite close to either the 50% mark (borderline), or “average” for those that took the test … though I and T are no where near the middle or “average” on me. Had a read through <personality reference bit> … don’t know that I’d seen it before, … well written, amusing, and at least relatively accurate :-). I’d taken the test also, some years back, … not sure if it came out ISTJ at that time, or not – I do remember at least one, if not two, of the characteristics being rather to quite close to borderline – so likely test results were fairly consistent – even if the particular letter labeling categorization might not have come out exactly the same. Anyway, I’m “truly” somewhere around I[NS]T[JP].
<increasing/bringing some fun stuff> – maybe/perhaps … at least somewhat. Though I’m far from an extreme expert or especially adept at such. I do tend to run on the relatively shy/introverted side of things … but do much better when suitably “warmed up” – but that can take a while.
<taking some time/work to get comfortable> – yeah, me too – very understandable.
<social anxiety / trying to be more social> – yeah, … I could do with more of that too. Who knows, maybe we could both help each other out there.
<analyzing a lot, etc.> – I do a lot of that too :-) … at least the (over-)analyzing bit … not always the explaining (but if/when I do explain, it’s generally well covered … if not overly so). <about observing a lot> – I do a lot of that too (and thought/analysis of/on it).
<qualifying statements> – I do a helluva lot of that. :-> I think it comes from several factors (in addition to just “personality” bits). I tend to be highly honest/truthful – and in that, too, I tend to be highly accurate … so, … tend to often quite qualify statements so they are quite absolutely true, and unlikely to be false, potentially false, misinterpreted, etc. Not that I’m 100% successful with that – but I do do it pretty effectively and thoroughly. I think the other bit too, is also profession (well, okay, more than “just” profession). Being a <specific career/profession bits>, I often *very much* appreciate, and well understand the importance of highly – if not absolutely and completely – accurate statements, and (typically) reduction/elimination of any ambiguities – at least where such is significantly probable to be problematic, and I tend towards well practicing such accuracy and completeness.
<about saying/interpreting quite literally> – yes, me too, quite so. Not (necessarily) withstanding puns, irony, satire, humor, etc. :-)
<particularly if intoxicated/tired> – interesting correlation. I don’t do <intoxicated> anymore (well, at least not via drugs/alcohol – did all my drinking before I was 21 – not that alcohol scares me away from bars or the like – though the smoking did keep me quite out of bars). When I get tired/exhausted – I mostly just slow down rather to quite a lot (and was about the same on that the very few times I was ever drunk).
<not effective at detecting flirt> – I’m so-so at that, … I’ll often miss it, or catch it a bit too late (after it’s run through the analysis – “Oh, … that was a flirt attempt!” <smacks self on forehead – well, at least mentally>).
<about thinking about reality> – reality is a pretty interesting/complex thing – especially when examined closely or largely (be that (astro)physics, or
philosophy, or …).

<on importance of chosen family> … yes, I generally find the bonds of those related by choice to commonly be much more meaningful and strong. I’ve not disowned my biological family (nor they me … well, with perhaps approximately one exception?), but, one gets what one’s born into – luck and quality can and do vary radically there. Very different (and generally *much* better) when one chooses. Certainly are friends(+++) that I have been or am *much* closer to and more “connected” with, than most (or all?) of my biological family.

<truth/honesty> – Yeah, I am, … quite … not perfect or a saint, but quite dang honest, truthful, etc. And I sure hope you are quite so also (would at least appear likely to be :-)).

<respecting relationship(s), independence, etc.> – yes, absolutely. I’m not the clingy or jealous type, and I quite generally presume one best knows what one wants/needs, etc. – or at least ought to (who the heck would I be to know, or even reasonably have a clue, regarding such for another? … unless I knew them at least rather, if not exceedingly darn well). And I’d want/expect you (or most anyone) to be quite (or at least sufficiently) independent.

<on very out/open on one’s life> – very cool. I applaud and congratulate you on that. Example well set. I highly support you – and anyone else – on that. For me, eh, bit of a mixed bag. Were society a helluva lot more “accepting” of … whatever (well, pretty much anything and everything) – fairly likely I’d be very open about … well, whatever – maybe more or less anything and everything. So, rather, … it’s more of case-by-case choice – and often reevaluated and adjusted – at least for me, anyway. I’m often more of a (quietly – or not quite so) nudge things more in the direction I wish to see – rather than smack folks in the face with (whatever) … but it also quite depends (circumstances, issue, etc.) – sometimes I’m much more likely to be quite direct or even confrontational – but really “all depends” – can depend upon a whole lot, e.g. even quite the specific person and the nature and degree of their “attitude” – and how probable I think I’m likely to be to “adjust” – or at least somewhat nudge/alter/influence their attitude/opinion/take on … whatever. “world where we are not stigmatized” – here here, I agree! I think we may just take some different approaches on how to fix the world (and often multiple different approaches concurrently may be more effective than just a single approach). “If you don’t agree, we’re not likely to” … I do agree – at least to a quite large extent – and sure as hell support how you’re going about it. Just not quite the same way I may go about such things.

<on liking () and …, etc.> – Cool. :-) I tend to use ’em a fair amount, … even a lot, … okay, maybe sometimes “too much”(?) and (occasionally) berated for them? :-/ (well, not picked upon for them *too* often, anyway). (So, how *much* do you like parentheticals? (and how ’bout if they’re nested? (deeply even?)) – and do unbalanced parentheses (possibly excepting emoticons) annoy you?) Do you, too, like or at least tolerate some other bits, such as *emphasis*, or maybe other random bits? (or even something like [cough, cough] for some web context that can’t handle <cough, cough>?)

<specific art form> – Cool. I’ve got near zero artistic talent myself, but sure can and do appreciate such. Among those I peeked at, this one quite caught my eye:

<very good at alarm/timing> Interesting. I wonder if it well correlates to <personality type>s or those rather/quite close to such, or perhaps something else we may quite have in common. If you wish, have a peek here:
regarding some of my “timing” bits. I tend to do that quite well – asleep or awake. My mom tells me I was born quite on time – on my due date … hmmm, not sure how they’d calculate the due “hour” – but I probably started out less than 1% off, anyway.

<snuggling>. Snuggling rocks. :-) Our Western (so called) civilization is way too anti-touch / touch-phobic – quite sucky that is.

<food/cooking> – cool … I do quite like to cook, and very much like to control what ingredients go into what I cook – I cook almost everything from scratch, starting with basic ingredients – I really prefer not to have a bunch of cr*p (or any, generally) in my food. But I’m not an absolutist, either.

<on direct gaze into eyes> interesting/cool – I don’t particularly manage to do that (and I probably ought to improve that). I think much of that is, perhaps(/likely?) – watching someone’s reactions as I’m talking, I often find at least a bit, if not fairly significantly, distracting … so much of the time when I’m talking, I won’t look directly at the person. I suppose too, it depends a lot upon what I’m saying or attempting to communicate too. If I’m trying to recall or intelligently cover applicable bits I’m trying to say (“information dump”), and not especially concerned about reaction(s), I’m much less likely to look directly at the person(s) I’m talking too. On the other hand, something I know(/feel) quite well, and perhaps too if I’m much more comfortable/relaxed with the person and/or more interested in their thoughts/feelings/reactions to what I’m saying, I’m much more likely to look rather, to quite, directly at them.

“books, movies, shows, music, and food” – much I like in what you mention there. A (very) few I’ll comment on (and in no particular order): <…> and yes, most remakes generally suck – with relatively rare exception <…> – those are at least many that caught my eye, as ones I rather to exceedingly like. I do also quite like your list, in that I also see a lot of “oooh, I wanna check that one out!” ones that I’m not yet personally acquainted with. I could go on at length about many you mention (and too, many of my favorites) … but I’ve already rambled on pretty long here.

<picky with food, likes to cook for self> – I’m a pretty adventurous eater – but I also do quite like do my own cooking.
<a particular food/ingredient> – yum. :-).
<a particular food/ingredient> – yes, I keep it in stock at home (okay, maybe roughly half the reason is for <another useful property/benefit>).

<intelligent communications> – definitely something I very much enjoy.

<passion … intimacy> – Nice. Passion is great – very nice to be passionate about … whatever/whomever. Intimacy – yes, lovely to have and share that very well – but too, whole lot of kinds of “intimacy” – not all for all connections/interactions (but hey, best with “everything” – but can’t always have/get “everything” – or might not otherwise be suitable).

<expolore location, etc.> – sure, … not that I’m an expert on <location> … but I did live there for about 16 years – though that was over a decade ago. But I do know at least some parts of it rather to quite well, and much of it at least fairly well (I’m a Bay Area native, and have lived in the East Bay just about all my life – so I do know <location> at least fairly, if not rather, well).

<particularly interested if gay, etc.> – sorry, I’m not. Guess I was born that way – can you fault me for it? (a very best female friend of mine quite expressed to me before, “I wish you were a woman” (and she’s not at all gay – she’s highly straight … and hates men))

She publicly answered <same or about same number as below> questions
She answered <well over 1000> questions
Impressive. :-)
<quite high percentage> Match – well, yeah, but that’s just the quantifiable bits. Somehow I suspect OkCupid’s math may be a wee bit fuzzy. E.g. how do they turn:
You match.
<category percent matches – all <=84%>
into: <quite high percentage> Match?

Anyway, I'd be quite interested to hear from you. Certainly feel free to message me here, or if you'd like, give me a ring:
<phone number, etc.>

<referenced some bits>


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: