I don't understand messaging girls

It is said that: 1. Girls who are attracted to you will reply quickly (<2 hours, average ~15 minutes) 2. Girls who are not attracted to you will reply slowly (>2 hours, average ~6 hours) However: 3. Girls I am most definitely and very clearly just friends with reply to me very quickly, and these are quite regular messages. 4. Girls whose relationship with me is more ambiguous reply slowly but may reply with larger messages or multiple messages at once. Can someone explain this behaviour to me? I don't get it

3. is same soykaf as talking to your mom, when youre not even on the dating radar the rules dont apply

>>32896 So then does it follow that 4 must be girls who see some potential but aren't particularly attracted either?

>>32900 Reply speed is just about indicating distance, you reply slow to show you don't care that much about them. Its a power dynamic where you don't want to show that you care more about them than they care about you. Once the delay has been shown to indicate their stance its not a faux pass to throw a whole book/ multiple messages because the only thing that's relevant is the initial delay. What follows next is how fast you reply to them which determines the appropriate reply speed for them.

Not worth understanding. Go with your gut and be forthright, better than all the dumb games kids these days play

>>32902 Is distance a metric in and of itself or does it correlate with attraction?

>>32903 I don't have a 'gut' that's the problem.

People are not like hosts, you can just "ping" and wait for a reply in X time to see If its working. I just have ONE rule about this, people which give answers in less than a minute, have nothing to do most of the time.

>>32908 If there's no way to understand the interactions I have I'm kind of stuck aren't I?

>>32908 And this is why people will artificially inflate reply time. Gotta look busy and important lest you talk soykaf about them having no life to the common peers. >>32906 Attraction obviously modifies behaviour but the change is not universal. I believe the initial point that most will reply fast if attracted but it's not universal. Some will fear looking needy / like losers because of the first paragraph and write slow regardless to look valuable. Some just dont care what you think and reply asap fully embracing that their live is whatsapp.

>>32909 It no what I tried to say, I just want show you that its needed more than timing message answers to understand relation with human.

>>32912 oh well that makes sense

>>32902 this type of extrapolation personally bothers me, I can at least argue with n=1 that there are interactions that might be very important personally but just can't be met with an adequate response immediately. If someone wants something from me and they're important to myself I'm going to make sure my response is not completely half-arsed. Putting more effort into a response means you can't always respond immediately. Reply speed can also naturally vary a lot depending just on everyday life. I suppose there is merit in the idea that people will allocate time quicker if the person who inquires something of them are important to them, but to judge affection based on reply speed and somehow infer that there is this linear relationship between time and affection is trashy. I'm more with >>32907 and >>32912 on this one.

People are too varied in their behavior to be defined by some rigid set of rules. Reminds me of the people who think things like "if they're not looking you directly in the eye when they speak then they're obviously lying" and then get conned by scumbags who know how to lie with 100% confidence.

You will never understand, because this is simply not possible to understand people defined by so little. If you can meet with a person, you can see what the person feels towards you and the questions this thread raises become rather pointless. If you will rely on messaging, you will end up being a clown for most egirls out there, a sad and unfunny one, reading tea leaves whether someone really needs you or not. Internet relations are hyper objected and this thread is a proof for that. You can only guess but never know. This is why I'm trying to quit and set up a rule to never message on personal matter anyone I've never seen IRL.

>>32895

>>32962 These are people I knew irl they just went to uni far away

Lately i'm feeling depressed because of these situations. I always try to reply anyone the quickest i can, if i can't i'll apologize and come with some explanation. In other hand some of my friends are starting to reply late my messages, this makes me think i'm not worth their times.

>>33014 Don't feel the need to apologise

some people just arnt on their phone all day and can be busy with having a job etc..dont over think it

Dont waste your time figuring it out bros. There is no 'book' of etiquette. We all have our own mannerisms nowadays. People pick up social ques from the wired just as much as real life. Everyone's upbringings are so different today that each of us has a unique preference for communication. The only rule I can say is this: people create gravity around those who they find interesting. This is where the classic 'be yourself' quote comes into it. You could try and pretend to be whatever character you think will make people like you, but your only going to attract those that you don't like. If your interested in computers you probably want to meet somebody who also appreciates what you do. So with ghosting girls on messaging to try and seem cool, your only really going to attract girls who liked to be ignored, if you enjoy playing these games forever you can I guess.

3. Friendzone. They need you as tearbag. 4. Same. They probably reply from a computer in evenings which allows them to type longer messages. Stop using degenerate instant messaging. Stop talking to women. Love Lain.

>>33167 Promise us you aren't planning to shoot up a food court?

>>33168 I'm not from Walmartia, sorry.

>>33014 All I can say is that I relate to this lainon, don't apologize for using your time for something other than chatting. Also don't feel discouraged just because your friends are doing the same, you'll only be able to tell if they're worthless or not from face to face interactions anyway.

>>32895 I used to play these games and worry about this kind of stuff when I was a teen, but honestly it's a massive waste of time. Thinking that there are rules like >if she doesn't reply to you in less than n hours, she doesn't like you is retarted. People are different and have different habits. Obviously if she always takes very long to reply to you and replies very shortly, never texts you first etc. she maybe doesn't like you, but it's better to go with your gut feeling. Also, I'm not good with women, and I also often have a hard time understanding them. But you should stop thinking about these texting games and people who play them probably aren't worth dealing with.

>>32895 when shown video of women being beaten, most men go flacid a woman's body however becomes prepared for sex she gets wet instinctually, it is to protect her from damage of a potential rape this then explains why "women like bad boys" the danger and/or threat of violence makes them wet since sexual violence is such a turnoff for most men men falsely believe making a women feel protected and respected is the way to her heart "nice guys finish last" is the result of boring a woman with such shielding I heard all this on the internet, so it must be true In short, if she replies right away, you're big enough to hurt her, but you're too nice to be afraid If she takes too long, you're a wimp and not even on her radar If it's in the goldilocks zone, she was afraid to reply, but her hands were slippery from fingering herself she accidently hit send on that message she was mulling over for so long Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>34048 I was expecting this to be an acrostic.

I despise these stupid manipulation games normal users pretend to play, nothing I hate more than control freaks who don't even know what they want, and I see it fuarrrking everywhere. In my observations soykaf magically works out for those that do and say whatever the fuarrrk they mean. Like honest people attract each other or something. Yet all these boring retards play their silly games and have soykaf relationships and rightfully hate each other, this is not limited to "romantic" relationships either. Life is not an information management sim and it is in you and everyone else's best interest to be honest. Not that I have ever met a normal user with enough energy to maintain the charade, their true intentions are always revealed through action or the lack of it.