[XPQ21]

It's sometimes difficult to infer emotional state from text messages alone, but in my experience dealing with women via text I think there are a few clues that may help one in planning moves.

Some women who are not very educated may type in "lolspeak" text lingo all the time. However, many women who are more educated that work office jobs have some command of the English language, and are capable of using proper capitalization and grammar.

I think the format of a text can tell you a bit about where you stand. If she starts off texting you more formally, using correct capitalization and grammar, but then relaxes into using lower case and no punctuation, this is a good sign. It means she is relaxing to your presence.

However, if at some point after she has already been engaging you with "lolspeak" internet lower-case texts, and then switches back to correct punctuation, capitalization, and grammar, I think this is a bad sign. It is a distancing/dominating maneuver where she, subconsciously or not, is attempting to place you in the same bin with the types of work related emails/messages she has to send on a daily basis. If this happens consistently I think it means things are going south; if nothing obvious has been done on your part to piss her off it most likely means that she's found someone more interesting to engage with and is in the process of nexting you/shunting you into orbiterville.

I don't know if the women I've seen this happen with are consciously aware of it, but it's happened often enough that I don't believe it's a coincidence.

[italktostrangers]

Any data to back this up? I think your points are valid inferences, but if the conversation goes from formal to "lolspeak" could it not also imply indifference?

[XPQ21]

(05-20-2015 07:02 PM)italktostrangers Wrote:  

Any data to back this up? I think your points are valid inferences, but if the conversation goes from formal to "lolspeak" could it not also imply indifference?

I don't know what data you'd be looking for - I have no idea how you'd even study such a thing formally. It's more like just an observation/heuristic that seems to be true in the limited cases I have experience with.

If she's actually talking to you in an informal manner and actively engaging, I don't think that implies indifference. Of course the substance of the text matters as well, but in my experience indifference is more indicated by slow/lack of reply to messages, period. Replies that are both delayed and formal are obviously deathsville as anyone could probably figure out.

An interesting article Roosh posted a while back was titled "All women burn you the same" or something like that. I don't believe all women suffer from full blown narcissistic personality disorder, but everyone has narcissistic traits to a greater or lesser degree, and I do think that many women engage in the idealization/devaluation/discard cycle in relationships with men that is characteristic of that personality type. Having advanced warning of the approach of the latter half of the cycle is probably a good thing.

[italktostrangers]

I'm not trying to call you out, I'm actually curious as I've never done any data sheets on the subject myself. From my personal experience, I've noticed the longer the message I receive, the better. But I never considered writing style. And emoticons always seem to be a good sign. Looking forward to the rest of the community's thoughts.

[XPQ21]

(05-20-2015 07:47 PM)italktostrangers Wrote:  

I'm not trying to call you out, I'm actually curious as I've never done any data sheets on the subject myself. From my personal experience, I've noticed the longer the message I receive, the better. But I never considered writing style. And emoticons always seem to be a good sign. Looking forward to the rest of the community's thoughts.

The most striking example I can recall in my own life was a chick who started giving me the formal/slow reply treatment while she was at work during the week after a holiday; usually she couldn't wait to alleviate her boring work day by messaging me. I found out later she had hooked up with a dude at party over the weekend.

So soon after such a "betrayal" their rationalization hasn't kicked in to the point that they can just act "natural" with you, so I think this is how the "guilt" comes out. Short, seriously delayed, and/or formal replies for no apparent reason after things had been clicking along fine in the relationship previously are a dead giveaway something is up.

[XPQ21]

People are generally creatures of habit - most of us get up, piss, poop, eat at the same times, work at the same times, and talk to the same people at the same times, most of the time. It's surprising to me that so many people get duped by cheating spouses for so long as usually the signs that something is "off" are so painfully obvious so quickly. It's probably willful ignorance.

There's a construct in machine learning known as a hidden markov model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model

There are assumed to be "visible" states and "hidden" states, and the mathematical problem is usually to infer the "hidden" states from the visible states. Like, I can't see what the weather is at Alice's location, but I know that on rainy days Alice goes shopping 80% of the time or whatever, and by talking to her on the phone and learning what she's doing on a certain day I can infer with a given probability what the weather is at her location.

I experimented with using HMMs to model human behavior a bit when I was an undergraduate years ago; I messed around with logs from chat rooms and tried to make a basic model to infer based on message frequency and content what people's activity cycle was like - when they slept, ate, and so on. The results weren't terrible.

The same types of construct has been used to model human's emotional relationships with brands and such, where the person's emotional state is considered to be the "hidden" variable. It's also used by credit card companies to model a person's spending behavior and flag when something out of the ordinary happens.

See this (math heavy) paper: http://mlt.sv.cmu.edu/joy/publications/b...ec2010.pdf

One of the most interesting pieces of publicly available data to all Facebook users is that ridiculous "last active" sidebar. It's a data stream that is totally ripe for analysis; it's likely that those super-secret-type government agencies already use this type of information along with GPS to model and analyze their employees texting behavior and look for red flags.

Someone with fewer scruples than I could probably make a lot of money developing an app for public consumption, though FB would certainly never allow its use directly. That "last active" sidebar is IMO a complete invasion of privacy and has probably already been responsible for ruining relationships, rightly and wrongly.

[XXL]

The more "vivid" the text is the better. So emoticons, smileys, descriptive language, lots of words, etc. The shorter is it the worse. It's like a reflection of girl's state at a time. It's not 100% rule but pretty damn accurate [I meet few girls who always wrote just pure text without anything else].