How does love happen?

[Cognisant]

I keep a small circle of friends and with them I only maintain intermittent contact, I generally avoid social media and I want nothing to do with pubs, clubs or parties of more than a dozen people. With such a small social sphere I tend to make a point of approaching any applicable single women who enter it, I figure I can't afford to waste such opportunities even if nothing comes of asking them out or trying to befriend them.

So I was absentmindedly pondering this when something occurred to me, I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one, which is quite a fitting metaphor considering the number of dates I've been on which went well but nothing came of them.

Now I think the problem is on my end because forming an emotional attachment or "falling in love" as they say just isn't something I do, to me these women aren't people I've specifically chosen to pursue they're just people who happened to come into my proverbial range that I didn't decide to avoid. So forming an emotional attachment to them, especially on a first date, is something that doesn't make sense to me and now having just written that I'm wondering, is this a control thing? Do I need to feel someone is emotionally attached to me before I feel safe enough to allow myself to risk becoming emotionally attached to them?

Okay I don't like that theory, I don't want to run around getting my heart broken by effectively random women until one deems me acceptable or that'll be a suitable placeholder until the next guy she wants to pursue enters her social sphere.

Anyway the question I wanted to ask (as I wrote in the title) is how do you go about approaching love in a ubiquitous way without outright having a meta-social conversation about falling in love, or is that the best way to do it?

 

[Red myst]

Different people have different attachment styles. There is also a matter of the catalyst that started the "love" and the ingredients that provide the momentum.
How does one go on a first date that goes well and not follow it up with a second?

 

[StevenM]

You don't need to answer publicly on here, but ask yourself how do you idealize a perfect love? What would the qualities and characteristics be in your ideal partner?

My premise is, I think there is a fair bit of idealization in this process. The cool thing is, when you find a girl which you perceive to match your qualifications, as you get to know her, you'll find some shocking differences which you'll have to learn from if you want to remain with her.

Even though there are differences, love should have a lot of similarity to a friendship. Love may kick off quicker than a friendship, and be somewhat more intense, but still the relationship part is almost exactly the same as a friendship.

I'm not sure if it's the right strategy or not, but try to strive for friendship before anything else.

I hope I didn't annoy you if you found this information was too obvious or well-known :/

 

[Cavallier]

Anyway the question I wanted to ask (as I wrote in the title) is how do you go about approaching love in a ubiquitous way without outright having a meta-social conversation about falling in love, or is that the best way to do it?

I don't. I don't approach love at all. Not initially in a ubiquitous sort of way. In the past I persued both men and women that I thought were interesting. If you are securing dates with people then you are fully capable of engaging a person enough to get them to trust you with one on one time.* Yet, I never made a point of making my persuit about love. It was out of a desire to find out how a person ticked. Often, these relationships would turn into friendships and some of them turned into romantic entanglements. Either way lovey sexy time was a byproduct. Sure, I made it clear fairly early on if I was romantically interested but by early on I mean after we had become comfortable enough with each other to play video games together for hours or hang out and watch tv. We were relaxed with each other before we were lovers. Even then, depending on your definition of love I did not have what I would call deeply connected love feelings for someone until I had known them for years.


*Call me skittish if you want but one on one time with a new person is heavy duty exhausting work.

Edit: I guess I persued intimacy and not love. Are you trying to parse out the difference between those things?

 

[Absurdity]

Wu wei

 

[Cognisant]

How does one go on a first date that goes well and not follow it up with a second?

We have a good time hanging out, nothing happens, at the end of the night or the next day I ask if they'd like to go out again sometime and if they don't I don't ask again.

I'm getting a whole new perspective as I write this...

You don't need to answer publicly on here, but ask yourself how do you idealize a perfect love? What would her qualities and characteristics be in your ideal partner?

Uh rational, speaks her mind and has a mind to speak of I guess.

I dunno I don't really formulate ideals because the ideal partner dosen't exist so there's no point disappointing myself and there's plent of desireable traits I wouldn't even think to idealise in the first place so I choose to keep my mind open.

 

[Lacplesis]

Change something, so that new people can enter your social circle. Chances are there will be some young pretty girls. With a help of some luck, you can find yourself staring at some girl in awe. It sort of happened with me. New workplace, new people around, including one very attractive girl. At the beginning I did not liked it a single bit, because I had enough stress in the workplace already, and I did not wanted more stress to be put on me, because for me being around attractive girl is stressful, or so I felt. Hell, every 5 minutes I would unconsciously be staring at her and then quickly turn my head as my consciousness understood what I was doing. It is strange however that after a while she started to look back, ask for work related advice and her body language is saturated with flirt signals.

I mean i still dont now how does love happen, but I can say how to find a potential mate.

I guess you sort of should not ask a girl out if you really dont feel a thing towards her.
We as intps tend to overthink and overcomplicate things. Your body can sometimes tell things for you. You would be suprised.

 

[StevenM]

Uh rational, speaks her mind and has a mind to speak of I guess.

I dunno I don't really formulate ideals because the ideal partner dosen't exist so there's no point disappointing myself and there's plent of desireable traits I wouldn't even think to idealise in the first place so I choose to keep my mind open.

I'm just speculating, but I have a theory that there may be a continuum between "Open minded to anyone" and "Idealized to a specific person". In my theory, you fall heavy to the "Open minded to anyone", which is very selfless, but in the process leads to an inability to fulfill a certain "tick" in you. On the other extreme, a person who is heavily "Idealized to a specific person" may be somewhat selfish, and not cast a very wide net, and probably won't last too long in any relationship being closed minded. Falling in between this spectrum may be optimal, because it allows you to feel something, while still being open-minded to the other person.

I could be a goof too.

 

[Red myst]

It takes exploration. There are known known's, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. You are in good shape if you don't go around falling into infatuation. And you are wise not to look for ideals. But surly you must know some things about what you would want in a partner? For instance, I am guessing you would like a partner who also has a small social circle? What do you consider to be a practical GF? Some people are fun and entertaining for a while, then they grate on your nerves. You need to more than the first date to find these things out.

 

[Cognisant]

Wu wei

To my nihilistic eyes all behaviour is contrived and thus natural.

Essentially what you're saying is the same as Cavallier's advice but here's the thing, that's not my natural mode of behaviour, I don't habitually hang out with people I invite them over when once in a blue moon when I desire their companionship (likewise I'm very low maintenance) so when it comes to seeking a relationship it's not something that just happens to me, it's something I specifically set out to do, irl I'm an incredibly straightforward kind of person, nothing could possibly be more unnatural for me than trying to arrange the sort of context Cavallier described.

Now to the poster in reference, you're an attractive young woman so you can afford to wait around and single guys that are interested in you will gravitate towards you, it doesn't work that way for me and I doubt it would even if I was a more social kind of person.

 

[PhoenixRising]

A few things struck me in what you've said here:

forming an emotional attachment or "falling in love" as they say just isn't something I do..

I dunno I don't really formulate ideals because the ideal partner dosen't exist so there's no point disappointing myself and there's plent of desireable traits I wouldn't even think to idealise in the first place so I choose to keep my mind open.

I think, from what you've written here, it's possible that you've grown past the capability to fall in love. It is a highly subjective and subconscious phenomenon that I do believe can be outgrown as a person experiences the disillusionment of reality. It could also be that you just haven't met anyone who interests you enough, though, as others have suggested.

Do I need to feel someone is emotionally attached to me before I feel safe enough to allow myself to risk becoming emotionally attached to them?

If this was the case, you wouldn't be alone in this complex. It's something I've struggled with myself, and have observed in many others.

I don't want to run around getting my heart broken by effectively random women until one deems me acceptable or that'll be a suitable placeholder until the next guy she wants to pursue enters her social sphere.

I do tend to be a pessimist, especially when it comes to matters of human social dynamics. But, from my experience, what you've described above pretty much sums up the reality of romantic relationships. Seldom are they permanent, and at least the "romance" dies after a relatively short time, many couples end up barely tolerating each other. We're all out for our own benefit, so even if someone settles down with another, there's always the possibility of betrayal if a more ideal partner shows up. I don't know if multiple heartbreaks are avoidable if one desires to engage in romantic relationships.

how do you go about approaching love in a ubiquitous way without outright having a meta-social conversation about falling in love, or is that the best way to do it?

Personally, I wouldn't date someone who can't have an intelligent conversation about the universal principles of any given topic, including the phenomenon of love. I wouldn't mention anything to do with love or attachment until at least a few encounters in, though. A lot of people are wary of these topics, and may be scared off if they're brought up before some semblance of trust has been established.

I would take it slow, take time to get to know the person and their mental/emotional limitations. Then bring it up in a contemplative way, not imposing the idea of commitment on the other.

 

[Red myst]

I'm just speculating, but I have a theory that there may be a continuum between "Open minded to anyone" and "Idealized to a specific person". In my theory, you fall heavy to the "Open minded to anyone", which is very selfless, but in the process leads to an inability to fulfill a certain "tick" in you. On the other extreme, a person who is heavily "Idealized to a specific person" may be somewhat selfish, and not cast a very wide net, and probably won't last too long in any relationship being closed minded. Falling in between this spectrum may be optimal, because it allows you to feel something, while still being open-minded to the other person.

I could be a goof too.

A goof with a good observation!

 

[Cognisant]

I guess you sort of should not ask a girl out if you really dont feel a thing towards her.
We as intps tend to overthink and overcomplicate things. Your body can sometimes tell things for you. You would be suprised.

It's not that I don't find them attractive but that's just my body, meanwhile my mind doesn't find anyone attractive, at least nobody I've ever actually met.

I'm just speculating, but I have a theory that there may be a continuum between "Open minded to anyone" and "Idealized to a specific person". In my theory, you fall heavy to the "Open minded to anyone", which is very selfless, but in the process leads to an inability to fulfill a certain "tick" in you. On the other extreme, a person who is heavily "Idealized to a specific person" may be somewhat selfish, and not cast a very wide net, and probably won't last too long in any relationship being closed minded. Falling in between this spectrum may be optimal, because it allows you to feel something, while still being open-minded to the other person.

Sounds legit.

For instance, I am guessing you would like a partner who also has a small social circle?

Actually I couldn't care less, she could have hundreds of friends so long as she doesn't expect me to remember their names, indeed I recognise that being with someone more social than myself might actually be very good for me.

What do you consider to be a practical GF? Some people are fun and entertaining for a while, then they grate on your nerves. You need to more than the first date to find these things out.

If someone annoys me I just say it, if a girl can't appreciate my straightforwardness then she's impractical, I don't pretend, I keep no secrets, even here I expose my most private thoughts and feelings with reckless abandon because I consider self censorship deceitful and unconstructive, in the past I expressed some abhorrent views and rightly got torn apart for it, now I'm grateful to those people and undoubtedly better off for the experience.

 

[Cognisant]

I think, from what you've written here, it's possible that you've grown past the capability to fall in love. It is a highly subjective and subconscious phenomenon that I do believe can be outgrown as a person experiences the disillusionment of reality. It could also be that you just haven't met anyone who interests you enough, though, as others have suggested.

Aww thank you.

But when you put it that way I suppose I do have an ideal, not an idealised person but rather an ideal relationship, love is contrived but that doesn't mean there can't be love in spite of the contrivance indeed I think awareness of its contrivance and thus frailty makes it all the more precious, I think two people can choose to have a special relationship for the sake of it being something special.

I may be a soulless organic automaton but I still feel lonely.

 

[Red myst]

It's not that I don't find them attractive but that's just my body, meanwhile my mind doesn't find anyone attractive, at least nobody I've ever actually met.


Sounds legit.


Actually I couldn't care less, she could have hundreds of friends so long as she doesn't expect me to remember their names, indeed I recognise that being with someone more social than myself might actually be very good for me.


If someone annoys me I just say it, if a girl can't appreciate my straightforwardness then she's impractical, I don't pretend, I keep no secrets, even here I expose my most private thoughts and feelings with reckless abandon because I consider self censorship deceitful and unconstructive, in the past I expressed some abhorrent views and rightly got torn apart for it, now I'm grateful to those people and undoubtedly better off for the experience.

But it works both ways!!! Some people seem annoying at first till you get to know them. Kinda like BG you need to explore these things. I will tell you this. I will be married 30 years in Sept. to the person I had the WORST first date in my life with. We gave each other the bennifit of the doubt for several months. Things just happened. We still laugh about those initial awkward months.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Aww thank you.

But when you put it that way I suppose I do have an ideal, not an idealised person but rather an ideal relationship, love is contrived but that doesn't mean there can't be love in spite of the contrivance indeed I think awareness of its contrivance and thus frailty makes it all the more precious, I think two people can choose to have a special relationship for the sake of it being something special.

I may be a soulless organic automaton but I still feel lonely.

I do agree with what you've said here. Although, for someone who is aware of the contrived and transient nature of love, a relationship would probably take a somewhat different form than what's thought of as traditional "romance".

Deciding to have an experience with another person just for the sake of it sounds interesting and even appealing. As you said, if something isn't expected to be permanent, then it's more likely to be valued in the moment. In addition to that, the lack of unrealistic expectations would likely make the present experience more fun.

 

[Cognisant]

But it works both ways!!! Some people seem annoying at first till you get to know them.

I do make an effort not to be too blunt and I'm really hard to annoy*, however...

For instance today someone asked me to review something they'd done, I stood there contemplatively for purposes of comedic timing then told them it looked aweful, it clearly didn't, I was just kidding and they knew it. However the person in question who is fairly new to their job was asking for my serious appraisal (kind of fishing for a compliment too, just that kind of person) so after the fact it occurred to me that by making a joke of it I might have unconsciously exhibited my annoyance at being distracted from my task over such a trivial matter, something that their reaction suggested they clearly picked up on.

Subtly is not at all natural to me but I'm observing and I'm learning, unfortunately a rational understanding of subtly only helps me figure out what happend after the fact, it dosen't prevent me unwittingly displaying annoyance in the first place.

*: Unless I'm in a philosophical discussion with an irrational person or with Adaire who has this unique ability to get under my skin.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So I was absentmindedly pondering this when something occurred to me, I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one, which is quite a fitting metaphor considering the number of dates I've been on which went well but nothing came of them.

There might be people who prefer the chase than the catch, but this might also just be idealized expectations.

What would you do with a normal buddy? You would want to share (your) hobbies and interests, and occasionally get into new activities together. It should be the same with an SO except with even lowered guards. As Red myst was saying though there are different attachment styles, so the similarity between friends and SO should vary depending on desired romance, intimacy, commitment, involvement etc.

I said the same thing of myself, but it seems clear to me now that I want a life partner. Hanging with the other dogs would be great for everything else but it's not typically intimate/romantic,personally it feels like something is missing.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I may be a soulless organic automaton but I still feel lonely.

Right there...your vulnerability juxtaposed against your blunt rational demeanor is the combination that makes you endearing (to some). If you come across someone of interest, allow for some of that vulnerability to peak through.

 

[Red myst]

I do make an effort not to be too blunt and I'm really hard to annoy*, however...

For instance today someone asked me to review something they'd done, I stood there contemplatively for purposes of comedic timing then told them it looked aweful, it clearly didn't, I was just kidding and they knew it. However the person in question who is fairly new to their job was asking for my serious appraisal (kind of fishing for a compliment too, just that kind of person) so after the fact it occurred to me that by making a joke of it I might have unconsciously exhibited my annoyance at being distracted from my task over such a trivial matter, something that their reaction suggested they clearly picked up on.

Subtly is not at all natural to me but I'm observing and I'm learning, unfortunately a rational understanding of subtly only helps me figure out what happend after the fact, it dosen't prevent me unwittingly displaying annoyance in the first place.

*: Unless I'm in a philosophical discussion with an irrational person or with Adaire who has this unique ability to get under my skin.

Observing and learning is great, just work on a little more practicing.
I have a bit of a gift because I am hard to read. I won't let anyone glimpse anything. It is a natural reflex to appear neutral until I have figured out the appropriate or best demeanor.
You have gotten some pretty good feedback on your thread. Nothing more I could add really.

 

[Cognisant]

As you said, if something isn't expected to be permanent, then it's more likely to be valued in the moment.

Before I get to that here's a message nil posted on my board and my response to it I sent as a private message to him.

I am talking about emotionality and individual experience. Do you disregard it or just not see any value in it?

Have you ever been lonely, I mean really really lonely?
Without company the world is very subjective, indeed when you are on your own as far as meaning is concerned you are god, beauty is whatever you deem beautiful, good is whatever you decide is good. There was a time when I was on my own so much that I only really socialised in my dreams, because only in my dreams were the figments of my imagination convincing enough to fool me into believing I wasn't actually alone. Thus my dreams became more real to me than my reality, but in my every waking hour I still knew they were dreams so I fell into a great despair because what are our experiences worth if they're not shared?

All experiences became worthless to me because without being able to share my experiences I may as well have imagined them, without other people there's no difference between my imagination and reality, and an imagined reality is hollow.

Subjectivity is my waking nightmare, I would rather throw myself upon the cold harsh truths of existentialism than go back to that living hell, so yes I disregard my subjectivity and see absolutely no value in it.

Of course I feel but in of itself emotion has no meaning to me, only relative to other people's emotions are my own emotions made real to me.

So when I say permanence is what I want you might better understand why, y'see I don't give a damn what shiny thought baubles someone has in their head, I don't care if they can dance or sing, they could be the kindest & sweetest person in the world or an absolute psychotic asshole, I still don't care.

What matters to me is the clarity of their mind and the security of our relationship, because I want a cure, I want my reality back, I want to go to an art gallery and share my experiences with someone who will be with me in the future to talk about our shared past, and more than just viewing the painted romanticism of a long dead artist I want to feel that romance myself and not wake up to realise it was only a dream but to find someone beside me who, insofar as I can ensure it, will always be there.

 

[Cavallier]

What matters to me is the clarity of their mind and the security of our relationship, because I want a cure, I want my reality back, I want to go to an art gallery and share my experiences with someone who will be with me in the future to talk about our shared past, and more than just viewing the painted romanticism of a long dead artist I want to feel that romance myself and not wake up to realise it was only a dream but to find someone beside me who, insofar as I can ensure it, will always be there.

If you don't care about their thoughts and you don't care about their interests but you still want to have the permanence of a loving relationship then you don't want a person. You want a robot, darling. Go out and make one. Make one so spectacular that you fall to your knees every time you look at it.

 

[Grayman]

If you don't care about their thoughts and you don't care about their interests

I received the opposite indication of this.I felt he wanted them to be honest about their thoughts and straight forward but then maybe that is my assumption base on the fact he values such things.

 

[Absurdity]

I do make an effort not to be too blunt and I'm really hard to annoy*, however...



*: Unless I'm in a philosophical discussion with an irrational person or with Adaire who has this unique ability to get under my skin.

I think I found a match for you

 

[Cavallier]

I received the opposite indication of this.I felt he wanted them to be honest about their thoughts and straight forward but then maybe that is my assumption base on the fact he values such things.

That could be. I'll wait for Cog to weigh in. From what I'm seeing it's not who they are that's important but that they are easy enough to live with and that they are devoted.

To me, that sounds like a lovely robot. Or a dog. But Cog doesn't like squishy dirty organics much.

 

[Puffy]

I say spend your resources on self-cultivation & creative pursuits. I've never dated anyone beyond a few weeks in my life (through fault of my own and circumstance) and I'm pretty self-satisfied with a few good friends and meaningful activities to pursue. My view is that if I set myself on the path that's right for me, the people most relevant to that are more likely to come along my path.

I still think real love is a rare thing and something that just happens rather than can be sought after or formulated.

Otherwise, it's pretty self-evident that you have to be in a position in which you're meeting new people. I hate standard dating sites, bars & clubs as well. Or any contrived atmosphere really. My home-town is dull, but elsewhere I was a part of hiking, urban exploration, and film clubs - just meeting new people without the pretense of dating in something that interests you.

 

[Kuu]

It's not that I don't find them attractive but that's just my body, meanwhile my mind doesn't find anyone attractive, at least nobody I've ever actually met.

So, are you dating them in hopes of sex, or? Do you even want a relationship as an end in itself, or do you just want to fill a void in your life? Forcing a relationship won't get you anywhere, specially if you are insecure in what you want out of it.

Now I think the problem is on my end because forming an emotional attachment or "falling in love" as they say just isn't something I do, to me these women aren't people I've specifically chosen to pursue they're just people who happened to come into my proverbial range that I didn't decide to avoid. So forming an emotional attachment to them, especially on a first date, is something that doesn't make sense to me

Nobody makes an emotional attachment on a first date. That takes months and years to develop. In fact, if you're fishing for immediate emotional attachment you'll likely never succeed: that's the sign of someone damaged or desperate. Focus on common interests and fun.

Anyway the question I wanted to ask (as I wrote in the title) is how do you go about approaching love in a ubiquitous way without outright having a meta-social conversation about falling in love, or is that the best way to do it?

"Love" does not happen. "Love" is something that is made. In fact, forget about "love". You want companionship? Hang out with people and accept them as they are (as long as they don't abuse you). You want trust? Trust people. You want intellectual discussions? Have intellectual discussions. You want intimacy? Be intimate. You want bigger rewards? Take bigger risks.

Sure, there are never guarantees. The point is to enjoy the process. Even failure can be a learning experience. If you're not enjoying the process of meeting new people and are just grinding through motions betting everything on a sudden romantic success, you'll be utterly terrified of defeat and will easily give up, typical self-fulfilling prophesy style.

I think I found a match for you

I somehow doubt that would go over well...

 

[redbaron]

Adaire who has this unique ability to get under my skin.

Adaire truly is one of the universe's most magnificent artists with a scalpel

Spoiler

Do you like daggers?

 

[Cognisant]

If you don't care about their thoughts and you don't care about their interests but you still want to have the permanence of a loving relationship then you don't want a person. You want a robot, darling. Go out and make one. Make one so spectacular that you fall to your knees every time you look at it.

I've thought about that but the crucial thing is that it needs to have its own mind, I don't much care what a person's thoughts/interests are but they do need to have thoughts/interests, I just figure whatever thoughts/interests a person has must have some appeal to them and I'm adaptable enough to share that appeal too.

I mean people change, their thoughts change, their interests change, given long enough even their personality will change and so to fall in love with someone based on such things seems very shortsighted, y'know I want to extend my lifespan indefinitely and so for any relationship to last the test of time it would have to be very unconditional.

Also I don't think I could have a relationship with one of my own AIs, at least not until the mind has sufficiently matured that I can't just predict it's every thought/action and even then if I was the one that raised it a romantic relationship just wouldn't seem appropriate.

 

[Base groove]

Also I don't think I could have a relationship with one of my own AIs, at least not until the mind has sufficiently matured that I can't just predict it's every thought/action and even then if I was the one that raised it a romantic relationship just wouldn't seem appropriate.

Once it reaches that point the tables turn 180 and then you find yourself in a real relationship.

 

[Pyropyro]

With such a small social sphere I tend to make a point of approaching any applicable single women who enter it, I figure I can't afford to waste such opportunities even if nothing comes of asking them out or trying to befriend them.

I think I posted the video about it here a while ago but I think you'll find your mate in your weak links or those the teeter on the edge of your social circle.

Okay I don't like that theory, I don't want to run around getting my heart broken by effectively random women until one deems me acceptable or that'll be a suitable placeholder until the next guy she wants to pursue enters her social sphere.

That's how it is. Think about it as preparation for more seriously heartbreaking events in your future life.

Anyway the question I wanted to ask (as I wrote in the title) is how do you go about approaching love in a ubiquitous way without outright having a meta-social conversation about falling in love, or is that the best way to do it?

Beats me. I always see it as a covenant as oppose to a contract. Even if the party breaks their promise, it doesn't mean you have the right to do so too.

I may be a soulless organic automaton but I still feel lonely.

Aw... I'm gonna go Gopher on you and offer hugs

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Adaire truly is one of the universe's most magnificent artists with a scalpel

I was simply born to paint with blood.




To address the op, in my opinion, love is involuntary. Specific biochemical conditions that exploit vulnerable loopholes in the framework of the mind. You can create certain conditions to encourage or discourage love in yourself, but you cannot control it directly. That's also why some people, once they adopt a certain mindset, like phoenix rising, become almost inoculated against love. Plus, the act of trying to convince yourself to have feelings likely bars you from actually having them in them in the first place.


Eventually neuroscience will figure it out and if you survive till then you'll be able to 'rationally' pick and choose which emotions you'd like to experience at your convenience.


Until then, well, Kuu gives good advice as usual; the bastard. Perhaps trying to increase your empathetic and sympathetic capacity would help. Learning first to love 'humanity' before appreciating and falling for individuals. Maybe... 'Loving humanity' sounds really annoying.

 

[The Gopher]

I haven't loved anybody I don't first know. For me there has never been love at first sight. I get to know people as friends in groups first. (and then it's kinda involuntary) Now you said you have small groups which is a problem with my method.

Now contrary to popular belief I don't love everyone. I am interested in everyone, mainly in why they are how they are. Even boring people I wonder what made them so boring.

That said as part of your wide social group I am on the lookout for people

 

[Cognisant]

Learning first to love 'humanity' before appreciating and falling for individuals.

I'm not giving up my dream to one day legitimately brag that my drones kill more people annually than cancer.

Unless someone cures cancer, then the target is heart disease.