4 ms·

I had a friend who would "test" girlfriends by taking them camping for a few days. Camping or other intense travel that raises the level of discomfort (no runn

by jt2190 12y ago

I had a friend who would "test" girlfriends by taking them camping for a few days. Camping or other intense travel that raises the level of discomfort (no running water/flush toilets/electricity/internet/air conditioning etc.) reveals someone's true nature very quickly. You'll see whether they get cranky or stay optimistic, whether they're disorganized or not, whether they carry more or less of their fair share of the load, whether they get on your nerves, etc.

re1ser 12y ago
This is really good idea :)
- jpd750 12y ago
  I concur, I feel like this or any other situation to bring out true emotion is what is needed.
  - maaku 12y ago
    Such as dumping you as soon as they find out you'd rather challenge them with physical tests than communicate?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
cududa 12y ago
Is his name Dwight Schrute?
lalos 12y ago
Also a good way to find out if the don't like camping or if it's their first time. Interesting but I don't like the idea of 'testing' people.
- hga 12y ago
  Those hardly matter; in fact, if the person was an avid camper the test would be useless, because it's designed to put them under stress in ways considered socially acceptable, and see how gracefully they degrade.
wfn 12y ago
If this happens organically, then that's one thing (e.g. going on a hitchhiking/whatever journey for two weeks or more, etc. - it does kind of work (get to know person as side effect, and so on)); but institutionalizing it (so to say) just sounds shitty. Maybe because the person doing the 'test' would always (at the back of their mind, etc.) know that it was being done deliberately. And this kind of informational asymmetry is, simply put (imho), not ethical. (Nor does it sound sexy or spontaneous or groovy or really interesting.)
- stfu 12y ago
  I think the difference between male and female "testing" is often just in the rationalizing process e.g. if you were approached by girls since the age of 12 you would have established by now unconsciously some "filters".
  - wfn 12y ago
    Sure, but i think there's a nontrivial difference between these kinds of (usually) spontaneous and (often/usually) unconscious filters, vs. a whole streamlined process (which takes a longer time; though it does yield more information, as a rule (imo.)) Then again, maybe this is just, uh, institutional ludditism ;) (i.e., everyone has their own process, some have simply industrialized it a bit (e.g. for want of a more spontaneous set of filters, as you said.) But this metaphor probably doesn't work that well.)
    - mercer 12y ago
      I agree that it's a nontrivial difference, but I don't know if one approach is better than the other. It's something that has been on my mind a lot. I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that knowledge about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a practice of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility. Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as strongly. Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses 'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally, assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives? I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet. For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying well-tested techniques is very effective. If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.
jt2190 12y ago
[Replying to my own post, since I can no longer edit for clarification.] A lot of commenters have let their imaginations run wild and turned "travel/camping trip" into some kind of "survival of the fittest/Navy SEALs/I WILL BREAK YOU" type endurance test. This was not the case at all. An example of what I'm talking about... The next time you're traveling, watch how the other travelers react if things don't go exactly according to plan, like an unexpected delay. You'll see all kinds of reactions, from calm and taking it in stride to completely loosing it. It's incredible how some people will let even the tiniest inconvenience throw them off of their game completely. That type of person is not someone who will be an ideal cofounder, because nothing about a startup is going to go exactly as planned. Also watch what happens when things get boring. Once the initial excitement of starting a company has passed, there will be many, many days that just aren't that exciting. Disney World is exciting, but driving from LA to Orlando in the shortest time possible can either be a blast or drudgery depending on who you're with. Some commenters are also reacting negatively to the idea of "testing" someone. Let's be clear here: Every question you ask your potential cofounder is a "test" of some sort, since too many wrong answers will result in their rejection. Loosing a cofounder is so traumatic to a startup that you really should put good effort into learning whether your potential cofounder is just "talking the talk" and will jump ship at the first sign of trouble, or if they can actually "walk the walk", and stay committed to the venture for the long haul.

by jt2190 12y ago

re1ser 12y ago

This is really good idea :)

jpd750 12y ago
I concur, I feel like this or any other situation to bring out true emotion is what is needed.
- maaku 12y ago
  Such as dumping you as soon as they find out you'd rather challenge them with physical tests than communicate?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

cududa 12y ago

Is his name Dwight Schrute?

lalos 12y ago

Also a good way to find out if the don't like camping or if it's their first time. Interesting but I don't like the idea of 'testing' people.

hga 12y ago
Those hardly matter; in fact, if the person was an avid camper the test would be useless, because it's designed to put them under stress in ways considered socially acceptable, and see how gracefully they degrade.

wfn 12y ago

If this happens organically, then that's one thing (e.g. going on a hitchhiking/whatever journey for two weeks or more, etc. - it does kind of work (get to know person as side effect, and so on)); but institutionalizing it (so to say) just sounds shitty. Maybe because the person doing the 'test' would always (at the back of their mind, etc.) know that it was being done deliberately. And this kind of informational asymmetry is, simply put (imho), not ethical. (Nor does it sound sexy or spontaneous or groovy or really interesting.)

stfu 12y ago
I think the difference between male and female "testing" is often just in the rationalizing process e.g. if you were approached by girls since the age of 12 you would have established by now unconsciously some "filters".
- wfn 12y ago
  Sure, but i think there's a nontrivial difference between these kinds of (usually) spontaneous and (often/usually) unconscious filters, vs. a whole streamlined process (which takes a longer time; though it does yield more information, as a rule (imo.)) Then again, maybe this is just, uh, institutional ludditism ;) (i.e., everyone has their own process, some have simply industrialized it a bit (e.g. for want of a more spontaneous set of filters, as you said.) But this metaphor probably doesn't work that well.)
  - mercer 12y ago
    I agree that it's a nontrivial difference, but I don't know if one approach is better than the other. It's something that has been on my mind a lot. I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that knowledge about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a practice of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility. Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as strongly. Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses 'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally, assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives? I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet. For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying well-tested techniques is very effective. If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.

jt2190 12y ago

[Replying to my own post, since I can no longer edit for clarification.] A lot of commenters have let their imaginations run wild and turned "travel/camping trip" into some kind of "survival of the fittest/Navy SEALs/I WILL BREAK YOU" type endurance test. This was not the case at all. An example of what I'm talking about... The next time you're traveling, watch how the other travelers react if things don't go exactly according to plan, like an unexpected delay. You'll see all kinds of reactions, from calm and taking it in stride to completely loosing it. It's incredible how some people will let even the tiniest inconvenience throw them off of their game completely. That type of person is not someone who will be an ideal cofounder, because nothing about a startup is going to go exactly as planned. Also watch what happens when things get boring. Once the initial excitement of starting a company has passed, there will be many, many days that just aren't that exciting. Disney World is exciting, but driving from LA to Orlando in the shortest time possible can either be a blast or drudgery depending on who you're with. Some commenters are also reacting negatively to the idea of "testing" someone. Let's be clear here: Every question you ask your potential cofounder is a "test" of some sort, since too many wrong answers will result in their rejection. Loosing a cofounder is so traumatic to a startup that you really should put good effort into learning whether your potential cofounder is just "talking the talk" and will jump ship at the first sign of trouble, or if they can actually "walk the walk", and stay committed to the venture for the long haul.