gwyn’s theory of interpersonal interest, #1

In this series: #1 | #1.5

I was recently invited to give a TED talk (where TED stands for Topical Extended Discussion here) by a clown. Of course, I have risen to the challenge.

I began with the intent to capture obsession but got sidetracked into operationalising interpersonal interest instead. Oh well, still a worthy contribution to society.

A brief primer on terms used in psychometrics (the art of measurement in psychology). Since I have repeated this to my students ad nauseam, I might as well lecture my fans too.

• A concept/construct: the phenomenon you want to understand. Usually a “big idea” that needs further definition and explanation. In this case, interpersonal interest.
  • What does it mean to be interested in someone?
  • What are the characteristics that comprise interest? What are the central elements it must have, such that if they were not present, the concept would no longer be “interest”?
• Operationalisation: to make a concept measurable. What are the observable signs of interest?
  • We must be able to see and measure these markers. For example, if thinking about someone is a sign of interest, we should be able to measure it somehow.
    • Example: count the number of times you think about that person in a day or the percentage of time you spend thinking about someone compared to others.
  • Things that are not measurable are psychometrically (and scientifically) worthless.
    • Example: the “energy vibrations” I send out to the universe when I am cursing men to dream about me. HAH

---

Interpersonal interest: how much you’re interested in someone or vice versa. Contextualised to social media since that’s my panopticon playground and main site of research.

Now, the Checklist

Signs, in order of increasing intensity (0/absence = least interested, 5 = most interested). Checking off a sign higher on the list indicates that the lower signs have already been met.

1. Watching your stories.
   • The more stories you watch and the more you regularly check for updates, the stronger the interest. (If your defense is “I’m just scrolling”… don’t you have better things to do?)
2. Visiting your public platforms unprompted.
   • The preceding suggests they are taking the initiative to visit your profile (or blog, hehehe) without an external stimulus i.e. the action stems from an internal desire. Quite telling behaviour, if you ask me (I adore men who are obsessed with me).
   • Unprompted access to your profile is trickier to measure, but you can make logical deductions (my favourite activity). I wish I knew who read my blog, but it doesn’t matter because I delude myself into thinking that everyone reads it anyway. Delulu~ is the solulu~
3. Texting.
   • Obviously. The more frequent and initiated, the stronger the interest.
   • A step up from the above because it means that at least one party has initiated contact, hence manifesting the interest. But see the section below on power asymmetry.
   • By the way, DMs on Instagram are like a 2.5. We’re not really friends until we have each other’s numbers (and I’m not just saying this because it means you can then PayNow me).
4. Meeting in person.
   • Kind of an inevitability following 3 if the relationship is worth anything — see comments below.
5. Putting aside your ego for them.
   • Best illustrated with a negative example — persistence in effort despite being rejected. Imagine one of your best friends said one day that they wanted to end the relationship. If you would fly down to their place and cry at their doorstep begging them to take you back, that’s a 5.
   • Because it means you’re down so bad you’d put your pride down for another shot, even when the odds are against you. The relinquishing of pride, given its fundamental importance to one’s self-esteem, is the greatest compliment you can confer upon another.
   • We love that; I do. I’ve done it before, and I’ll always have a soft spot for those who’ve tried it with me.

Some comments

• Before you rate them, you must pre-categorise people into romantic OR platonic interest.
  • If you can’t decide, default to platonic (if you have to think twice, you don’t like them enough — don’t waste their time!)
  • Being interested platonically does not necessarily mean I am interested romantically (fine: the “friendzone”). BUT if I am interested romantically, I am probably also interested platonically. So romantic is a sub-category of platonic.
• 3 (texting) and 4 (meeting in person) are the most intimately connected signs. The jump from 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 is comparatively large. Not that a relationship can’t be solid if it’s based entirely on text exchanges (the modern equivalent of a pen pal), but unless you have some extenuating circumstance (e.g. live on the other side of the world), there is no reason to not meet.
  • I detest 3.5 romantic prospects the most — those who linger in texting limbo but do not entertain further contact. They’re playing you, sis! You are a backup plan. DROP them like a hot potato, stat.
• Only consider people 3 and above to be potential friends, 4 for lovers.
  • The 2s either have no courage or do not care enough about you to pursue a relationship. Neither is your problem. Your time should be spent cultivating 3s, 4s, and 5s.
  • They’ve said that they love you over text but can’t seem to find the time to meet? They are asking for a small loan of $20,000, too? They are a LOVE SCAMMER.
• If you meet a 5 and you feel 5 towards them too — keep them in your life as far as possible.

On power asymmetries

And now, class, a fun activity:

• Identify someone you’re interested in.
• Rate your level of interest in them.
• THEN, rate — based on their past behaviour — their level of interest in you. Only look at what they’ve done: do not assume, do not infer their intentions.

Use the following formula to determine the interest asymmetry score:
[their interest in me] – [my interest in them].

Examples (may or may not be taken from my past experience):

• Someone acts like a 2 to me [their interest in me]. I act like a 0 to them [my interest in them]. 2 – 0 = +2.
• Someone acts like a 0 to me. I act like a 5 to them. 0 – 5 = -5.

A positive score indicates that you have more power in deciding how the relationship will develop presently. A negative score indicates the power is in their favour. Higher scores = greater magnitude of asymmetry.

Any asymmetry calls for an attempt at rebalancing.

• If you have more power (+): decide if their effort is worth matching.
  • If yes, match it.
  • If not, let them down easy. That’s the least you can do for them. (Except for players. Drag them to hell, babes.)
• If you have less power (-): decide if they are worth your time and investment.
  • If yes and you want more, COMMUNICATE YOUR DESIRES.
  • If not, off you go for greener pastures, sweaty! We have no time for low-effort relationships.

That being said, you never know how someone might respond to you in the end. (People might really be watching my stories simply because they are interested in observing hypomania in the wild, or because I’m super hot, and NOT because I’m a complex person with deep feelings and thoughts and great music taste. Sigh)

And the scorecard now does not mean it will always be the same; people and contexts change. In particular, based on my past experience, the power dynamics in intense relationships (another favourite of mine) are always fluctuating. Is that stable? No. But is that fun? Absolutely.

Finally, we manifest that we will only settle for 5-5s.

Well, class is dismissed; I hope you enjoyed it. My DMs are always open to new ideas! x