Single people everywhere know the perplexing nature of internet communications. There is no Emily Post for this sort of thing. Messages like this are as impossible to understand as Kryptos, and the CIA is still working on that one. Most people would just ignore this but I, being a social cryptographer, enjoy picking apart minuscule nuances of communication. When forensic scientists find the slightest bit of DNA they can build an entire case on it. So here we have the complex analysis of this seemingly harmless communication:
Background on the sender. This is the man my ex was with when we had an affair, and later he decided to break up with this guy to be with me, then did a 180 and decided to go back to him. This practice, in politically incorrect terms, is called indian giving. If only I had known to call no backsies. Also, I must assume that the text message I sent my ex: "You made your bed, and you should go lie in it with your pudgy codependent boyfriend," was shared with Nick at some point.
So, right of the bat, we must assume that this person does not like me. Unless some combination of painkillers and marijuana has made him a more benevolent force than Mother Theresa.
Now, lets examine the context. This message was not sent via text, it was not Match.com, it was not e-mail, facebook, twitter, or carrier pigeon. The sender chose Scruff, a gay "dating" app that is used primarily for hook ups and secondarily for dates. The profile lists him as single, which is not unlikely but seems a little bullshitty. Also note the time and date stamp of the message, this is clearly a post-cocktail message, further evidenced by the "Cheers" at the end. In the gay world 12:30am is also known as "who am I going home with-o-clock."
This message is cleverly timed and guised to indicate boo-tay. But lets not get too carried away with the ego of the situation. To assume that the sender is hitting on me is to fall into the trap of being punked (refer to RULE 1 in this stream of logic, which is 'we must assume this person does not like me'). We must consider all other possible solutions to the problem before resorting to this explanation last.
Let us now pick apart the diction of the message since we understand the context. We begin with the informal "Hey Zack," which seems harmless but indicates a number of things. "Hey" is the greeting used with a person you see regularly. Notice how "Hi Zack," has a different, less optimistic tone. That is the appropriate tone for greeting someone you don't particularly like. We are now further assured from the coy friendly tone that this message is disingenuous. And so, that becomes RULE 2 in decoding the message, this person does not mean what he says. Punctuation also plays a crucial role in this message. The sender chose a comma, rather than a period, to differentiate between the greeting and the body of the message. The comma is a more proper letter-format convention. However, in text messages and other communication where there are no line breaks and limited characters the period indicates a line break, or a pause, or a separate thought. For example here is the same text message:
Yo. Don't know if I can make it Monday.
Yo, don't know if I can make it Monday.
The first appears to move slower and seems a little more stiff, almost standoffish. It is assumed that the first message comes from not an enemy but someone who doesn't particularly like you, whereas the second seems a little softer because of the less jarring punctuation. Ordinarily a comma would indicate that the person is fond of you but remember our two rules: 1. this person does not like me, and 2. this person does not mean what he says.
So, we can safely surmise that the comma has the inverse meaning than it ordinarily would. Further more, it fits with the unexpectedly candid tone of the message. If the sender had used a period it would have raised a red flag that he was in some way hesitant about the message he was sending. Instead it is brazenly sent, and so we must be even more wary of this message because of it's seemingly harmless nature. This establishes RULE 3 in deciphering: this person has malicious intent.
The next part is complicated so I'll have to break it into two. First, here is the whole clause:
"...I hope you're doing as well as you look..."
Again, we mustn't be fooled by the seemingly friendly, almost flattering, nature of this message. The fist half can be paraphrased as, "I hope you're well," which indicates that the sender knows you either were not well or are still not well. A get well card when you're sick is sweet, a get well message when you've been broken up with is adding insult to injury. Also, given that I did not exactly take the break up well, this is a very subtle nod to that fact. The sender is insinuating that I am unwell in general, and simply operate in various states of unwell-ness.
In order to offset the insulting nature of this sentiment there is the additional message tacked on, which can be paraphrased as, "You look good." This message is cleverly dovetailed on the end in an attempt to inflate my ego to overcome the perceptive parts of my brain. However, because the sender has actually had very little interaction with me he wouldn't know that my bullshit compass is spot on. It takes more than a cheap compliment to pull a veil over my eyes. Most single people are ready to marry the first person that compliments them on their looks. But, we can not ignore the first half of the sentence in conjunction with the compliment.
When we bring the two parts together we see that the sentiment is not corollary, but contingent. You are good, if you look good. So, knowing that I'm not breaking any mirrors should inversely prove that I am good. But, because we know that the first part of the sentence is implied to be false due to RULE 1, 2 and 3, we must adjust the antecedent to reflect what we already know. The sender thinks you are unwell, therefore you don't look good. We can deduce that the second half of the sentence is actually an insult because A can only be true if B is true, but inversely if A is untrue then B is also untrue.
This establishes RULE 4: the sender means the opposite of what he appears to be saying. Now we can go back through the message and apply this rule to uncover its real meaning:
Original message: Hey Zack, I hope you're doing as well as you look~ Cheers : )
Deciphered meaning: Hi loser, you're crazy and unattractive ~ eat shit : (
Now that we understand the message we must examine why it was sent. I will break this part of the analysis into two categories based on the variable of whether or not this person is actually single.
If the sender is single:
A. He wants to play a trick on you
B. He wants to get back at the guy who broke up with him by fooling around
C. He is trying to get a reaction out of you
If the sender is still with your ex:
A. He wants to play a trick on you
B. He is doing surveillance
C. Someone else is using his phone for mischief
Now, since selection "A" in both lists represents 1/3 of the possibilities and all other selections represent 1/6 it is most likely that the sender is trying to play a trick rather than turn a trick. I suppose that no matter how I react, if I react at all I am fulfilling the desired result. And so, the best course of action is to DNR, DO NOT REPLY, and in my case blog extensively about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment