Read about The Theory of Interest first, if you've come here because of women. Otherwise, check the table of contents. Despite model scenarios, you can lose some illusions here.

Pokud jste tu kvůli ženám, přečtěte si, o čem Teorie zájmu vlastně je. Jinak zkuste rovnou obsah. Ač uvedené jsou modelové situace, nedivte se, když tu přijdete o iluze.


Posted by SomeoneCZ in ,

Aphrodite and JoxerYour behavior towards her affects her interest level in you. Therefore, we can say that she judges your actions, which we can further classify as following with respect to circumstances, under which she grades your behavior. We are interested in the reason that resulted into the interest level change:

  • Day Life
  • Test
  • Exploit

Day Life

On a date, do you wear a clean, non-wrinkled t-shirt and shiny boots? Do you make a noise over anything, or do you keep it cool? She watches your reactions and judges, what kind of person you’re. Her interest level was affected by your reaction to a situation, she did not intentionally create.

In the area of dating and relationships, Day Life situation is not Test or Exploit in the context of a reason of an interest level change.


Here come all situations she purposely arranged to test you. She can smile at you and want to change the restaurant every time you got into one. In reality, tour over all restaurants is not her goal – she wants know, when you’ll stand-up and risk loosing her. She can smile at you during a discussion to tell you that she thinks an opposite of something you’ve just said. Does she really think so, or does she wanna know, if you start to modify your opinion to match hers? What if she just wanna knows, if you have a backbone? ;-)

In the area of dating and relationships, Test is a purposely arranged action that triggers a relationship interest level change in some direction.


She liked the yesterday date so much, so she let you know this morning. She loves you so much, so she told you that. She misses you such much, so she sends messages. She does these things because of her high interest level – this is not a test. And you, lead by honor intentions, want to reciprocate the very same way. Parroting her reactions back does not increase the interest level. However, you feel like a manipulator as you intentionally keep back (your exploit) for a goodness of the relationship. Yet, thanks to rising emotions you take the parrot role anyway. And therefore, in the area of dating and relationships, I newly introduce the term "exploit" to describe these situations. Authors of encyclopedias and explanatory dictionaries, you have my permission to include the term:-)

In the area of dating and relationships, purposely-done Exploit follows an action that attempted to trigger a relationship interest level change in a desired direction. Accidentally-done Exploit follows an action that was not supposed to lower relationship interest level. Exploit is the following reaction that was done because of emotions.

Above mentioned message is an example of accidentally-done exploit. Having mercenary to go by an overloaded night bus, instead of using taxi, is an example of purposely-done exploit – you rough her ego by that.

Yet, there is one more difference – it is in you head. Although you have to watch your reactions, exploit can be misused (e.g. tears), you cannot consider everything as a test. This would throw you into a conspiracy world, where you cannot fully trust anyone. What would be such relationship worth? Well, it surely would not be worth continuing.

Thanks to a strong similarity with computer security, I leave the "exploit" name as is for languages other than English.

As you systematically try to raise her interest level, you act alike a running program. As no computer program is error free (at least as a sequence of processor instructions and any, including future, hardware), your efforts can be harmed by a specific input. Alternatively, you can affect another program by providing a specific input to it. Although, both situations can happen accidentally as well as purposely, the common denominator is always a program flaw altogether with a specific input.

She always judges your actions,
but she does not always arrange a test to do so.

Image: Alexandra Tydings and Ted Raimi in "For Him the Bell Tolls"

This entry was posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM and is filed under , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

1 komentářů

The article has been expanded accordingly to a feedback that was given for its version in Czech.

March 30, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Post a Comment