(no subject)
status. let's review.
status is a concept that i learned in improv. the basis behind it is that one low or high status quality engenders and encourages additional low/high status qualities. and that status is a convenient way of explaining why we find things funny or make us feel a certain way.
signs of low status:
physiologically: hunchback, a lot of personal tics and fidgets a lot, looks at the ground, looks awkward or uncomfortable, excessive smiling, jerky motions
speaking: stutters, mutters, says things without confidence, says things that are very self-deprecating, accepts condescension, speaks quickly with lots of emotion
personality: weak personality, humble, easily "stepped on", swayed, etc.
high status is more or less the opposite. speaks slowly, thinks they're the shit, etc.
examples of high status people: frat guys, lane, matt m, nicole d, the traditional image of a military general
examples of low status people: bristin, me, john w, tasha (from cedro hall. like whoa. can you say no eye contact?)
applications in life:
a definition of friends: "people who play status games with each other." example of a status game: have two people talking, and each person try to get even more status than the other person. (it's hilarious.) or more tangibly: me being sassy and trying to put down people. that's an example of me trying to elevate my status and lower another person's status. telling an embarrassing story or making that reach for that stupid joke that you can't quite pull off: willing to make yourself lower status.
for me: i know that i am about 90% more comfortable playing low status, and about 90% comfortable interacting with people who are low status. it's just a matter of learning more about yourself and your tendencies, etc. and obviously it would be optimal if you could play high status when you need to play high status (eg in professional situations...) and approach high status people when you need to approach high status people (eg schmoozing events)
re: friends, it's sort of tough because i think that we can all play high status when we need to play high status with each other and vice versa. like, in general, it's basically a wash for most of my friends because i don't often see them interacting with people who they aren't friends with. but in particular:
kirsten: it's interesting because she is able to act high status in a very friendly way. she speaks slowly, and the way she touches you and looks at you is very strong and very high status. it's definitely an interesting balance. (steph on the other hand....)
jim: i have never seen him act more low status than that one night with emily and the in-n-out. sorry. but it's true. like he definitely has this really theatrical, funny face, joking side of him that i don't feel like i see very often. like getting closer to jim, i have seen him act lower and lower status. but otherwise, i think that he does feel more comfortable acting high status than low status. (.... which... makes him mildly unapproachable at times?.... t/f. i dunno.)
work stuff.
what i look for in other people. someone asked me this today. so i decided to think about it. the answer: comfort, character, chemistry.
comfort: how comfortable you feel around the person to be yourself
character: their intentions for you, shared values, good values
chemistry: ability to make each other laugh and have a good time
close runner ups for the three c's: connection (eg how much you "get" someone, although that's combined in comfort and chemistry) and care (eg how much they care for each other. but that's largely character as well.)
the quality of being "down to earth." how do you even define this quality!? yet it is something that the so called fab four can identify.
"elderly woman, red fake-fingernails, riding bus."
okay. would be my attempt at my micro story (aka 6 words or less. hemingways: "for sale: baby shoes, never worn.") so i take the earliest bus (5:46AM), and this woman is alone on it. and she's really old. i have no idea where she's going or what her story is. but she has these huge fake fingernails with this really garish, bright red nail polish.
anyhow. she ended up taking the same bus back with me today. so, assuming that she was working, she definitely is working as much as i am. which is a lot. damn. she's really old. i wonder what her family is like....
her story honestly really intrigues me. i really would like to know it.
and yes, hemingway's rolls off the tongue and has more imagery. mine is very clunky and requires explanation. fine.
clothes. okay. forgot to mention this, but after realizing that i had to wear dress shirts to work, my family started buying dress shirts. and largely due to one ebay purchase by my sister, i definitely have over 20 button down shirts now. the thing is, most of them are really the loudest shirts you've ever seen in your life. which makes wearing them at work really awkward. the thing is, i'm carrying around a bookbag anyway. i dunno. i look fairly absurd anyway at work.
re: size. so the thing is, it's really tough to pull off "loud" shirts unless they fit really well, yknow? which none of these shirts really meet. so... i really still look like an idiot when i wear them. and i really need to dry clean these shirts. asdas;lfkjdal;kfs;lkdjf.
two coworker stories. referring to them with their first letter.
A. she has a "rep" of being one of the crazier interns. i happen to sit next to her today. and the thing is, she is really socially adjusted and you really wouldn't be able to tell if you didn't talk about work. unfortunately this was not one of those conversations: "oh man, i have to go to new york this afternoon, and i didn't do any work yesterday, so i'm going to come back and stay until 9PM or something to finish it." and if it was pressing work, then that's fine. but i worked on her desk the previous week, and i can tell you now that it is not pressing work. and the "not doing any work" is actually doing intern-y sort of stuff. (which may be confused with no work. lol)
she was then like "i have to go home and work out. i go running every day." which makes sense because general work compulsion can span various spheres of life. but then she revealed that this is sort of a conversation that transpired:
boss: so during this internship, you'll be doing nothing but eating and sleeping. you will be gaining weight in this internship.
a: no i won't.
b: i'll bet you $100.
a: .... i'll raise you to a million.
b: ..... okay.
they shake.
and i tried to be like "CMON, that isn't real." but she really was convinced that it is. so apparently he's a managing direction who makes $40m a year. and if she loses, she'll give him her first $1m. and i know i'm gullible. but seriously. she wouldn't budge. and that bet is so flawed. simply losing a pound would be sufficient.
this sort of dovetails into another discussion, which is, amanda has this story of her friend who became an ibanker and came back a changed man and nobody liked him again. two resolutions i will have with myself until the end of time:
1) stay down to earth and grounded and humble. remember your beginnings.
2) always be aware of the value of money. obviously live comfortably if you want to live comfortably and enjoyably, but also realize excessive spending is excessive spending. eg million dollar bets or really expensive clothes. food.
anyhow. random note: the more i talk to people, i think a lot of people go running every day after work. people here are cray cray.
G. this guy. i always have these preconceived notions about people. in this case, i totally had him pegged as one of those "nice guys", yknow? the kicker was that i found him especially interesting because he is, for all practical purposes, good looking. and i would categorize male attractiveness in two ways, like a nerdy sort of attractive and a "hunk" sort of attractive (does anyone know what i'm saying? the obvious analogy being madonna/whore hotness. or beautiful/hot. that's a really interesting dichotomy.). so even though nerdy attractive guys can be nice guys, i really have a difficult time meeting a hunk guy to be really nice guys. and i feel like it's just because girls would constantly be throwing themselves at hunks and they would be jaded and become mean. or something.
ANYHOW. i was really impressed with G, to say the least.
anyhow, today.
random hunk guy (i would also equate these people to "alphamales", etc): hey, you going sake bombing later tonight? (it's thursday, for reference)
g: do i look like i wouldn't?
yeah. that was sort of a really intense loss of innocence moment right there. thanks g. thanks.
not to say that drinking is necessarily equated to dbagness. but the guy who he was going with certainly struck me as a dbag (to be fair, i don't know him. (but as bristin would point out, since when am i fair)) and the whole process of sake bombing seems like such a fratty thing to do.
moral of the story: guys who are "hunky" attractive are not good people. don't ever be fooled by their quasi niceness.
-----
still no replies to the list to the email.