Hmm, I once went on a first date with a guy and it lasted three days (we met at a music festival.) I guess Durocher is right - it was fun and romantic, I became obsessed, and I'm still obsessed a...
Durocher said that while longer dates that span over six hours or multiple days seem fun and romantic, it can lead to early attachment and obsession with someone that you’ve only just met.
Hmm, I once went on a first date with a guy and it lasted three days (we met at a music festival.) I guess Durocher is right - it was fun and romantic, I became obsessed, and I'm still obsessed a decade later. I even married the guy four years ago, shoot. Talk about attached... ;)
It seems to me that the whole process of dating these days is overanalyzed and over-planned. Now, of course a quick coffee date is a great, low-pressure option for a first date. But if you happen to have a great date that ends up lasting all day, it seems incredibly ill-advised to consider that as a negative thing. I'm not sure how "meet some people, hang out with one you like, and keep hanging out with them if it's fun" became so much more complicated than it is.
Totally agree with you. I think the obsession is a defense mechanism. It’s a need for control stemming from a desperate avoidance of pain. You can’t avoid pain with dating though, unless you get...
Totally agree with you. I think the obsession is a defense mechanism. It’s a need for control stemming from a desperate avoidance of pain. You can’t avoid pain with dating though, unless you get very, very lucky. No amount of overanalysis or careful dissection or rule following can avoid that. You may as well just do what you did, go with the flow, spend time with people you love spending time with, accept that you may be hurt, and see what happens.
Ooof, this, completely. I had a realization a few years back that, basically no matter what, every relationship, every form of love will probably end in pain. For me, it was more about asking...
Ooof, this, completely. I had a realization a few years back that, basically no matter what, every relationship, every form of love will probably end in pain. For me, it was more about asking myself what I want, given that.
The pain's probably inevitable, why not try to have fun with it?
30 to 60 minute coffee date, man. That's all I ever needed to sit across from someone and decide if they were interesting enough and there was enough chemistry to try a longer date next time....
30 to 60 minute coffee date, man. That's all I ever needed to sit across from someone and decide if they were interesting enough and there was enough chemistry to try a longer date next time. Sometimes the 'ick' factor was within 5 minutes so it was nice to know that it wasn't going to be hours and hours before it was over. But the first date with my future wife went on much longer and later than I expected... and it still is 18 years later.
I think that's the best option, too. The concept of dating is way more stressful to many people than it should be. Coffee dates are perfect because it's so casual that there's no real expectation...
I think that's the best option, too. The concept of dating is way more stressful to many people than it should be. Coffee dates are perfect because it's so casual that there's no real expectation on them; it used to be a 'thing' that people would go to coffeehouses in pajamas. They also have a really simple out that either party can take if they're not feeling it; just slurp up your drink and get out of there. And of course, if you're both feeling it or just think there might be something there, you can stay as long as you want. Plus you're basically just sitting there talking; there's no silence while you eat or watch a show.
I've had many successful ice cream dates. Which is essentially the same, with a higher amount of sugar. There were also "sunset on the beach" dates, "boardwalk dates", "shopping mall dates",...
I've had many successful ice cream dates.
Which is essentially the same, with a higher amount of sugar.
There were also "sunset on the beach" dates, "boardwalk dates", "shopping mall dates", "arcade dates".
I don't think I ever had a "proper adult date" like in the movies. This sounds very American to me.
I think, in general, advice and “rules” about dating are really, really stupid. The rules are completely arbitrary and can cause people undue stress when they should just be enjoying themselves....
I think, in general, advice and “rules” about dating are really, really stupid.
The rules are completely arbitrary and can cause people undue stress when they should just be enjoying themselves. I’ve had great first dates that have lasted 5+ hours, I’ve had bad ones that lasted 30 minutes, and vice versa.
The one thing I’ve found from extensive dating is that any generalizations are barely useful at all. Everyone is just so different.
It seems that lately, everyone is obsessed with divining “red flags” from things that are generally benign, or even positive in other contexts (for instance, I’ve heard so many suggestions that someone being enthusiastic about you is actually “love bombing”, in which case my girlfriend and I have been love bombing each other for our entire relationship).
It leads to an overly suspicious, paranoid style of dating. I’ve had dates that would have been right at home in a cold cell with a light pointing at my face, being interrogated over all of my beliefs, and it seems to get worse as you get older. People have a really hard time accepting that in order to know someone you need to… get to know them, which takes work, and can be painful or uncomfortable. I think ultimately just accepting that you don’t know what’s going to happen, and that there really are no rules is a key to being a lot happier with dating in general though.
I wonder a lot about who was asked these questions. It says it was a random, double opt-in survey, which already raises some flags about who's willing to speak about dating and it was conducted by...
I wonder a lot about who was asked these questions. It says it was a random, double opt-in survey, which already raises some flags about who's willing to speak about dating and it was conducted by the beverage company Canada Dry... Why are they surveying people about dating? What existing polling methods do they have or are interested in? This is just such a bizarre premise.
Anyhow, looking at the data itself reveals a lot of stances that just seem really weird to me.
On average, a first date should last a little less than three hours (2.72), and it takes respondents about four dates to feel comfortable with that person.
The first half of this sentence makes sense to me, especially when thinking about a first date in the abstract, although it is definitely influenced by what is going on. Juxtaposed against the 81% of respondents believing that dinner dates are the hardest to escape, I think there's probably some issues in terms of how the questions are worded. Unfortunately, it's a private poll, so we won't have answers to methodology or question design.
The second half of the sentence I find really surprising. Four dates to feel comfortable? I think on average a single date per week is pushing it in terms of trying to coordinate schedules, so we're talking about knowing, seeing, and texting someone for a month before you're even comfortable with them? What does comfort even mean here? Do you need to be comfortable to have a first kiss? Arguably not, according to the very same poll as 56% of people seem to think a goodnight kiss is a good indicator the first date went well. So what does comfortable even mean here?
Moving on, there's some other bizarre questions, although ones which make sense in the context (beverage company asking questions about drinking):
Nevertheless, more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents are likely to base a love connection on whether their date has the same drink preferences.
If I had to venture a guess, they likely are asking people who are taking the survey whether their date having the same drink preference is a positive thing, not whether they would "base a love connection" on it. This is probably editorializing what the question actually asked a lot, but unfortunately there's no way to prove or know this.
This one isn't bizarre so much as it is interesting
Some felt they shattered their chances by spending too much time on their phone (48%)
If they realize this, why are they spending time on their phone? Perhaps it's mostly a reflection of the age of the participants and not having made the decision to not be on their phone. Speaking of age, I think it's fairly clear that this is mostly gen z as 84% of respondents knew what "rizz" was.
Finally, I found this one particularly interesting
In fact, the average person will hold onto hope for a little more than four days (4.36) before accepting the fact that they’ve been ghosted.
Perhaps this is a reflection of how young these folks are? Some people are terrible at texting, and I don't expect an immediate response. There are people I've been dating for months who sometimes will take a week to respond to certain texts. While they are on the excessive side of not checking their phone often, if its a weekend or people are traveling or anything comes up in their life, 4 days is practically nothing in the grand scheme of things.
And most people seem to agree. According to a recent poll of 2,000 adults in the U.S, who are actively dating, conducted by One Poll in collaboration with Canada Dry, on average a first date should last a little less than three hours on average.
First dates, although the potentially exciting start to a new relationship or partnership, can be incredibly nerve-racking, stressful, and even dreaded. The first meet-up with a possible partner is often filled with uninteresting get-to-know-you conversations about siblings, school, work life, and favorite colors. This is in addition to the mildly awkward moments and silences that come with meeting someone for the first time.
While first dates can come in many different forms like drinks, dinners, or fun bonding activities, one thing that TikTok loves debating is the standard length of a first date — and if the length even matters at all.
Some users on the app describe longer dates like flying out to see someone for a first date or dates that were six hours long. TikToker Miranda (who uses both she and they pronouns) has said that their most recent first date lasted 16 hours. On the flip side, others prefer a shorter hang-out sesh so that awkwardness is limited and you won’t have to suffer through it for long if it's not going well.
Dating and relationship coach Kate Durocher took to the app to share her opinion, stating that a first date should be no longer than two hours. Durocher said that while longer dates that span over six hours or multiple days seem fun and romantic, it can lead to early attachment and obsession with someone that you’ve only just met. Durocher said that the early connection and closeness that comes from meeting up for longer before you have really had time to discover whether your date is a “good person.” Plus, it could distract from any potential red flags which is why many prefer to go on a few dates, so they can take their time to get to know someone.
The poll asked about the ideal first date and half of the participants said grabbing casual drinks was the best first date option, while 43% said a coffee date, and 34% said a market or picnic date. As for the most uncomfortable part of a first date, 31% of the group said the nerves made them the most uneasy. They’re often a reason for a shorter date preference.
Whether your first date is 45 minutes or 16 hours, what’s most important is that you’re comfortable (And don’t worry, their poll found an ideal number for that too). According to the participants, four was the average number of dates a person needs to begin to feel comfortable around a potential partner.
"Dating and relationship coach Kate Durocher[...]" Because that's a totally legitimate, and not made up at all, profession... Definitely right up there with 'life coach' and 'underwater basket...
"Dating and relationship coach Kate Durocher[...]"
Because that's a totally legitimate, and not made up at all, profession... Definitely right up there with 'life coach' and 'underwater basket weaving gold medal Olympian'.
I'm trying to think what makes that job or similar ones raise that red flag. In a way, all jobs are made up, all job titles are kinda made up. I'm sure just some type of "coach" outside of a...
I'm trying to think what makes that job or similar ones raise that red flag. In a way, all jobs are made up, all job titles are kinda made up. I'm sure just some type of "coach" outside of a sports setting might be enough to raise the red flag. It seems like it might be things that you wouldn't expect people are paying for, so it's not really a job if you aren't getting paid to do it, or even if they are, there's probably so few people actually paying for it that there's not really enough to support competition further de-legitimizing the people who say that is their profession.
I was watching an HBO TV show about sex work and the beginnings of the porn industry in NYC in the 70s/80s called The Deuce and they said they had an "intimacy coordinator" on set which may have been one of the first major shows to have such a position. Because the show depicted what it depicted they wanted everyone on set to feel comfortable with the work they were doing. Also intimacy coordinator sounds pretty made up, but they hired someone for actual work and presumably if more productions were hiring people on that basis, it wouldn't sound like some made up shit anymore. I guess that's the other element of it, just seeing more people being employed as that helps make it seem less made up.
It's nice that you put some thought into the reply, and the anecdote about the intimacy coordinator is actually pretty interesting! I think one way (and by no means an all-inclusive one) to...
It's nice that you put some thought into the reply, and the anecdote about the intimacy coordinator is actually pretty interesting!
I think one way (and by no means an all-inclusive one) to consider it would be to look at it from a soft sciences vs. hard sciences point of view.
Hard sciences, being something like engineering, where you actually use things like destructive and non-destructive testing, mathematics, material sciences, physics, etc. In these, you have a final product which is essentially an absolute: for example, it looks like a bridge, functions like a bridge, and doesn't fall down when people are driving over it or in high winds.
Soft sciences, being things like psychology and sociology, which the 'profession' in question would fall into. It's a bit more squirrely when you tried to legitimize it, but there are important factors that go into it. You would need to do a ton of research, many different studies being performed by many different people and institutions. You'd use statistical analysis to prove the points you are trying to make, find what works and what doesn't work in specific situations, and everything would have to be peer-reviewed and repeatable. All of this would take many years and require tons of documentation, fact checking, established institutions that have built up trust, etc.
One big difference (and there are countless) between the two is that one of them produces repeatable results while the other is a case-by-case thing. For example, given a set of requirements and conditions, the bridge used in the first example can be designed and built with a degree of certainty, provided all the necessary steps are taken. However, you can give the same relationship advice to two different people in what seems to be a very similar situation, and it could work wonders for the first person, yet be a complete failure for the second.
Continuing on this, if you build a bridge and it collapses, people are dying and people are going to jail. However, if you screw up somebody's life with bad relationship advice, you aren't going to lose the license that you printed up at home, nor are you going to need to pay any financial restitution, etc. There's no checks and balances involved in the second case, unless of course you do something that is so outrageously unprofessional that it makes you criminally liable or able to be sued in civil court.
I know that's all one just aspect of it, but I think it's an important one when you come to consider what's a legitimate profession and what isn't. There are obviously countless 'professions' out there that make great money that shouldn't be deemed as true professions (personal opinion), like scam artists or life coaches. I'm not saying that you can't do either and make plenty of money, but like you mentioned, the shadiness factor plays a big role in how we perceive them and label them in our heads.
I can understand a knee-jerk reaction that a dating/relationship or life coach is insubstantial, but consider that not everyone has friends and family in their life they trust to call upon in...
I can understand a knee-jerk reaction that a dating/relationship or life coach is insubstantial, but consider that not everyone has friends and family in their life they trust to call upon in these situations (and that's ok!). Coaching as a profession is also about helping client reach the conclusions right for them, which is effortful and unselfish work. I've worked with a career and leadership coach for the past 2 years and it's unstuck many areas of my personal growth. I can see someone who is feeling stuck in their romantic life getting a ton of value out of the right coach.
That's great, I'm glad to hear that what you're doing is working for you! I applaud you for the personal responsibility and motivation that you've applied to fixing what you felt to be an issue in...
That's great, I'm glad to hear that what you're doing is working for you! I applaud you for the personal responsibility and motivation that you've applied to fixing what you felt to be an issue in your life.
I must say though, a person's personal experience does not legitimize an entire industry (what you're doing is a prime example of the anecdotal logical fallacy). There's zero way to track the successes and failures of all of these people out there and get any kind of useful statistics that would allow us to draw any defensible conclusions. What may work in one case could fail in the next hundred, or vice versa of course.
And to be honest, the point you're trying to make in your first sentence is one of the things I find most detestable about these people. They prey on folks who are emotionally and socially down and out, and profit from other's misfortunes. I'm not saying all of them go into it with that mindset, and some may do positive things with nothing but altruism motivating them. But it also leaves the field wide open for scam artists and mentally/intellectually unsound people claiming they have the answers based off their self perceived EQ and desire to not get a 'real' job.
There are people out that are certified as aura masseuses, and some of them make quite a pretty penny doing so. If you want to believe that they can wave their hands over your body and clean up your chakras, then of course you're free to do so. Just don't blame other people when they look at you with pity and think you're squandering your money and time.
I've been scammed way more by construction contractors, does that make it an illegitimate industry? The same argument could be made of most creative professions, therapists, psychologists, and...
I've been scammed way more by construction contractors, does that make it an illegitimate industry?
The same argument could be made of most creative professions, therapists, psychologists, and business consultants. I'm a software engineer by trade. There's many ways to scam in industries with discrete outcomes and quantitative metrics. That does not delegitimize the jobs or industry.
It sounds like your mental model here is biased and leading you to strawman examples. It's quite feasible to collect qualitative metrics about coaching and the conduct of coaches. Many industries create guardrails and accreditation to formalize imprecise quality factors -- education and medicine both have similar challenges.
Like any hired job, at the end of the day it's on the coaching client to decide whether the practice and outcomes are providing value. Not everyone has the facilities to do that, unfortunately, but that means they're vulnerable to scams of all kinds, not that coaches in general are scam artists.
Yo... How many times have you been scammed by construction contractors to consider it "way more"? I'm not doubting you, I'm legitimately curious. Seems like something you would learn from after...
Yo... How many times have you been scammed by construction contractors to consider it "way more"? I'm not doubting you, I'm legitimately curious. Seems like something you would learn from after the first time or two, and there are certainly plenty of ways to make sure you're getting a reputable person/company, provided you're willing to pay the money for it?
What you're talking about is the fact that anybody in any given profession can be bad at their jobs or go into it with duplicious intentions. I can't imagine there's anybody that would think otherwise? There are brilliant surgeons out there, and then there are surgeons that have accidentally amputated the wrong limb. Countless examples of that last one, sadly. But does that mean you would consider somebody who is a surgeon in the same breath at somebody who calls themselves a life coach? Is there a life coach path from an accredited university that spans almost a decade worth of intensive study, examinations, and monitored on the job practical application?
I'm not trying to use anybody/thing as a strawman here, and if it comes across that way then I'll have to blame my poor attempt at my previous reply. What I'm saying, and please let me be clear about this, is that I think that the industry in question is a joke, uncredible, and takes money from people with promises of providing answers they don't have and recommendations that are hit-or-miss at best. Can they occasionally do good? Sure, but if you throw enough spaghetti at a wall, a few pieces will eventually stick. Will some people, either through training, experience, etc, be able to make spaghetti stick more often? Sure again.
I agree with you in saying that at the end of the day it's the potential client's decision whether or not they spend money on any service or product, and the value they derive out of it will be their own. If you take another look, never once did I say that the industry should be made illegal or shut down. But just like another example I gave, there are aura masseurs out there, and if you're happy to spend your hard-earned money and place your faith in something like that, nobody should be able to stop you. Doesn't make it any more reliable or legitimate though.
Or maybe, considering you're a software engineer, I can put it like this. If a client wants you to write code to fulfill a specific request, but your code only runs correctly 1 out of 100 times, will the client be okay with that? Or will they hire someone who has all of the relevant certifications, and can produce a product that runs every time? I know it's a real sloppy example, but we are comparing a hard science (computer engineering) and a soft science (psychology/sociology), so it's going to be apples and oranges regardless.
But if you tell me there's a life coach / relationship coach that also has a masters or a doctorate in psychology with focuses on interpersonal relationships, etc, then I will be far more willing to put faith in somebody like that than somebody who got a certificate saying they're capable of doing so and nothing else to back it up.
I taught kids basketry when I was a teenager. We would often joke about doing it underwater. It's completely unnecessary and probably counterproductive, though -- it's not desirable for the reed...
I taught kids basketry when I was a teenager. We would often joke about doing it underwater. It's completely unnecessary and probably counterproductive, though -- it's not desirable for the reed to get too soft, either, and it can encourage mold growth.
That was definitely a great video. It also looked like a lot of fun, haha. If there's ever a DIWhy-esk topic on this site, highly recommend adding this video!
That was definitely a great video. It also looked like a lot of fun, haha. If there's ever a DIWhy-esk topic on this site, highly recommend adding this video!
You can get an actual PADI underwater basket weaving scuba certification through an intentionally-recognized agency. Though as an instructor for a competing agency, I just use that to make fun of...
You can get an actual PADI underwater basket weaving scuba certification through an intentionally-recognized agency.
Though as an instructor for a competing agency, I just use that to make fun of PADI.
Oh man... I wanted this to be true so badly, and you weren't just pulling my leg. It exists! Thank you very much for pointing this out, it definitely made my day, hahaha.
Oh man... I wanted this to be true so badly, and you weren't just pulling my leg. It exists! Thank you very much for pointing this out, it definitely made my day, hahaha.
Certainly you can call yourself a relationship coach, print up business cards, and get people to pay you. Totally agree with you there. But then again, Miss Cleo made an ungodly amount of money in...
Certainly you can call yourself a relationship coach, print up business cards, and get people to pay you. Totally agree with you there. But then again, Miss Cleo made an ungodly amount of money in the '90s and 2000s for her psychic tarot card readings, but I doubt any of us would call her a legitimate professional.
But hey, to each their own!
Haha, oh I'm sure it is! I remember back around 2006, my buddies and I found out you could become ordained ministers online, and all of us jumped right on it. It took all of 10 minutes, and it was...
Haha, oh I'm sure it is! I remember back around 2006, my buddies and I found out you could become ordained ministers online, and all of us jumped right on it. It took all of 10 minutes, and it was free unless you wanted to pay an extra $20 for a certificate you could frame and hang on the wall of your professional office/mom's basement.
Of course, we had the decency to treat it as the gag it was, and not get business cards printed up or try to dole out life advice to people.
Hmm, I once went on a first date with a guy and it lasted three days (we met at a music festival.) I guess Durocher is right - it was fun and romantic, I became obsessed, and I'm still obsessed a decade later. I even married the guy four years ago, shoot. Talk about attached... ;)
It seems to me that the whole process of dating these days is overanalyzed and over-planned. Now, of course a quick coffee date is a great, low-pressure option for a first date. But if you happen to have a great date that ends up lasting all day, it seems incredibly ill-advised to consider that as a negative thing. I'm not sure how "meet some people, hang out with one you like, and keep hanging out with them if it's fun" became so much more complicated than it is.
Totally agree with you. I think the obsession is a defense mechanism. It’s a need for control stemming from a desperate avoidance of pain. You can’t avoid pain with dating though, unless you get very, very lucky. No amount of overanalysis or careful dissection or rule following can avoid that. You may as well just do what you did, go with the flow, spend time with people you love spending time with, accept that you may be hurt, and see what happens.
Ooof, this, completely. I had a realization a few years back that, basically no matter what, every relationship, every form of love will probably end in pain. For me, it was more about asking myself what I want, given that.
The pain's probably inevitable, why not try to have fun with it?
30 to 60 minute coffee date, man. That's all I ever needed to sit across from someone and decide if they were interesting enough and there was enough chemistry to try a longer date next time. Sometimes the 'ick' factor was within 5 minutes so it was nice to know that it wasn't going to be hours and hours before it was over. But the first date with my future wife went on much longer and later than I expected... and it still is 18 years later.
I think that's the best option, too. The concept of dating is way more stressful to many people than it should be. Coffee dates are perfect because it's so casual that there's no real expectation on them; it used to be a 'thing' that people would go to coffeehouses in pajamas. They also have a really simple out that either party can take if they're not feeling it; just slurp up your drink and get out of there. And of course, if you're both feeling it or just think there might be something there, you can stay as long as you want. Plus you're basically just sitting there talking; there's no silence while you eat or watch a show.
I've had many successful ice cream dates.
Which is essentially the same, with a higher amount of sugar.
There were also "sunset on the beach" dates, "boardwalk dates", "shopping mall dates", "arcade dates".
I don't think I ever had a "proper adult date" like in the movies. This sounds very American to me.
I think, in general, advice and “rules” about dating are really, really stupid.
The rules are completely arbitrary and can cause people undue stress when they should just be enjoying themselves. I’ve had great first dates that have lasted 5+ hours, I’ve had bad ones that lasted 30 minutes, and vice versa.
The one thing I’ve found from extensive dating is that any generalizations are barely useful at all. Everyone is just so different.
It seems that lately, everyone is obsessed with divining “red flags” from things that are generally benign, or even positive in other contexts (for instance, I’ve heard so many suggestions that someone being enthusiastic about you is actually “love bombing”, in which case my girlfriend and I have been love bombing each other for our entire relationship).
It leads to an overly suspicious, paranoid style of dating. I’ve had dates that would have been right at home in a cold cell with a light pointing at my face, being interrogated over all of my beliefs, and it seems to get worse as you get older. People have a really hard time accepting that in order to know someone you need to… get to know them, which takes work, and can be painful or uncomfortable. I think ultimately just accepting that you don’t know what’s going to happen, and that there really are no rules is a key to being a lot happier with dating in general though.
Rules, yes, but advice isn't a bad thing.
On the other hand, advice is almost certainly where these "rules" come from in the first place.
I wonder a lot about who was asked these questions. It says it was a random, double opt-in survey, which already raises some flags about who's willing to speak about dating and it was conducted by the beverage company Canada Dry... Why are they surveying people about dating? What existing polling methods do they have or are interested in? This is just such a bizarre premise.
Anyhow, looking at the data itself reveals a lot of stances that just seem really weird to me.
The first half of this sentence makes sense to me, especially when thinking about a first date in the abstract, although it is definitely influenced by what is going on. Juxtaposed against the 81% of respondents believing that dinner dates are the hardest to escape, I think there's probably some issues in terms of how the questions are worded. Unfortunately, it's a private poll, so we won't have answers to methodology or question design.
The second half of the sentence I find really surprising. Four dates to feel comfortable? I think on average a single date per week is pushing it in terms of trying to coordinate schedules, so we're talking about knowing, seeing, and texting someone for a month before you're even comfortable with them? What does comfort even mean here? Do you need to be comfortable to have a first kiss? Arguably not, according to the very same poll as 56% of people seem to think a goodnight kiss is a good indicator the first date went well. So what does comfortable even mean here?
Moving on, there's some other bizarre questions, although ones which make sense in the context (beverage company asking questions about drinking):
If I had to venture a guess, they likely are asking people who are taking the survey whether their date having the same drink preference is a positive thing, not whether they would "base a love connection" on it. This is probably editorializing what the question actually asked a lot, but unfortunately there's no way to prove or know this.
This one isn't bizarre so much as it is interesting
If they realize this, why are they spending time on their phone? Perhaps it's mostly a reflection of the age of the participants and not having made the decision to not be on their phone. Speaking of age, I think it's fairly clear that this is mostly gen z as 84% of respondents knew what "rizz" was.
Finally, I found this one particularly interesting
Perhaps this is a reflection of how young these folks are? Some people are terrible at texting, and I don't expect an immediate response. There are people I've been dating for months who sometimes will take a week to respond to certain texts. While they are on the excessive side of not checking their phone often, if its a weekend or people are traveling or anything comes up in their life, 4 days is practically nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Jordan Murray
"Dating and relationship coach Kate Durocher[...]"
Because that's a totally legitimate, and not made up at all, profession... Definitely right up there with 'life coach' and 'underwater basket weaving gold medal Olympian'.
Admittedly, the job title does make me think of those psychotic "dating coach" videos about how to manipulate women into sleeping with you.
Hahaha, That's a funny and great comparison, and one I definitely wouldn't have thought up off the cuff!
I'm trying to think what makes that job or similar ones raise that red flag. In a way, all jobs are made up, all job titles are kinda made up. I'm sure just some type of "coach" outside of a sports setting might be enough to raise the red flag. It seems like it might be things that you wouldn't expect people are paying for, so it's not really a job if you aren't getting paid to do it, or even if they are, there's probably so few people actually paying for it that there's not really enough to support competition further de-legitimizing the people who say that is their profession.
I was watching an HBO TV show about sex work and the beginnings of the porn industry in NYC in the 70s/80s called The Deuce and they said they had an "intimacy coordinator" on set which may have been one of the first major shows to have such a position. Because the show depicted what it depicted they wanted everyone on set to feel comfortable with the work they were doing. Also intimacy coordinator sounds pretty made up, but they hired someone for actual work and presumably if more productions were hiring people on that basis, it wouldn't sound like some made up shit anymore. I guess that's the other element of it, just seeing more people being employed as that helps make it seem less made up.
It's nice that you put some thought into the reply, and the anecdote about the intimacy coordinator is actually pretty interesting!
I think one way (and by no means an all-inclusive one) to consider it would be to look at it from a soft sciences vs. hard sciences point of view.
Hard sciences, being something like engineering, where you actually use things like destructive and non-destructive testing, mathematics, material sciences, physics, etc. In these, you have a final product which is essentially an absolute: for example, it looks like a bridge, functions like a bridge, and doesn't fall down when people are driving over it or in high winds.
Soft sciences, being things like psychology and sociology, which the 'profession' in question would fall into. It's a bit more squirrely when you tried to legitimize it, but there are important factors that go into it. You would need to do a ton of research, many different studies being performed by many different people and institutions. You'd use statistical analysis to prove the points you are trying to make, find what works and what doesn't work in specific situations, and everything would have to be peer-reviewed and repeatable. All of this would take many years and require tons of documentation, fact checking, established institutions that have built up trust, etc.
One big difference (and there are countless) between the two is that one of them produces repeatable results while the other is a case-by-case thing. For example, given a set of requirements and conditions, the bridge used in the first example can be designed and built with a degree of certainty, provided all the necessary steps are taken. However, you can give the same relationship advice to two different people in what seems to be a very similar situation, and it could work wonders for the first person, yet be a complete failure for the second.
Continuing on this, if you build a bridge and it collapses, people are dying and people are going to jail. However, if you screw up somebody's life with bad relationship advice, you aren't going to lose the license that you printed up at home, nor are you going to need to pay any financial restitution, etc. There's no checks and balances involved in the second case, unless of course you do something that is so outrageously unprofessional that it makes you criminally liable or able to be sued in civil court.
I know that's all one just aspect of it, but I think it's an important one when you come to consider what's a legitimate profession and what isn't. There are obviously countless 'professions' out there that make great money that shouldn't be deemed as true professions (personal opinion), like scam artists or life coaches. I'm not saying that you can't do either and make plenty of money, but like you mentioned, the shadiness factor plays a big role in how we perceive them and label them in our heads.
I can understand a knee-jerk reaction that a dating/relationship or life coach is insubstantial, but consider that not everyone has friends and family in their life they trust to call upon in these situations (and that's ok!). Coaching as a profession is also about helping client reach the conclusions right for them, which is effortful and unselfish work. I've worked with a career and leadership coach for the past 2 years and it's unstuck many areas of my personal growth. I can see someone who is feeling stuck in their romantic life getting a ton of value out of the right coach.
That's great, I'm glad to hear that what you're doing is working for you! I applaud you for the personal responsibility and motivation that you've applied to fixing what you felt to be an issue in your life.
I must say though, a person's personal experience does not legitimize an entire industry (what you're doing is a prime example of the anecdotal logical fallacy). There's zero way to track the successes and failures of all of these people out there and get any kind of useful statistics that would allow us to draw any defensible conclusions. What may work in one case could fail in the next hundred, or vice versa of course.
And to be honest, the point you're trying to make in your first sentence is one of the things I find most detestable about these people. They prey on folks who are emotionally and socially down and out, and profit from other's misfortunes. I'm not saying all of them go into it with that mindset, and some may do positive things with nothing but altruism motivating them. But it also leaves the field wide open for scam artists and mentally/intellectually unsound people claiming they have the answers based off their self perceived EQ and desire to not get a 'real' job.
There are people out that are certified as aura masseuses, and some of them make quite a pretty penny doing so. If you want to believe that they can wave their hands over your body and clean up your chakras, then of course you're free to do so. Just don't blame other people when they look at you with pity and think you're squandering your money and time.
I've been scammed way more by construction contractors, does that make it an illegitimate industry?
The same argument could be made of most creative professions, therapists, psychologists, and business consultants. I'm a software engineer by trade. There's many ways to scam in industries with discrete outcomes and quantitative metrics. That does not delegitimize the jobs or industry.
It sounds like your mental model here is biased and leading you to strawman examples. It's quite feasible to collect qualitative metrics about coaching and the conduct of coaches. Many industries create guardrails and accreditation to formalize imprecise quality factors -- education and medicine both have similar challenges.
Like any hired job, at the end of the day it's on the coaching client to decide whether the practice and outcomes are providing value. Not everyone has the facilities to do that, unfortunately, but that means they're vulnerable to scams of all kinds, not that coaches in general are scam artists.
Yo... How many times have you been scammed by construction contractors to consider it "way more"? I'm not doubting you, I'm legitimately curious. Seems like something you would learn from after the first time or two, and there are certainly plenty of ways to make sure you're getting a reputable person/company, provided you're willing to pay the money for it?
What you're talking about is the fact that anybody in any given profession can be bad at their jobs or go into it with duplicious intentions. I can't imagine there's anybody that would think otherwise? There are brilliant surgeons out there, and then there are surgeons that have accidentally amputated the wrong limb. Countless examples of that last one, sadly. But does that mean you would consider somebody who is a surgeon in the same breath at somebody who calls themselves a life coach? Is there a life coach path from an accredited university that spans almost a decade worth of intensive study, examinations, and monitored on the job practical application?
I'm not trying to use anybody/thing as a strawman here, and if it comes across that way then I'll have to blame my poor attempt at my previous reply. What I'm saying, and please let me be clear about this, is that I think that the industry in question is a joke, uncredible, and takes money from people with promises of providing answers they don't have and recommendations that are hit-or-miss at best. Can they occasionally do good? Sure, but if you throw enough spaghetti at a wall, a few pieces will eventually stick. Will some people, either through training, experience, etc, be able to make spaghetti stick more often? Sure again.
I agree with you in saying that at the end of the day it's the potential client's decision whether or not they spend money on any service or product, and the value they derive out of it will be their own. If you take another look, never once did I say that the industry should be made illegal or shut down. But just like another example I gave, there are aura masseurs out there, and if you're happy to spend your hard-earned money and place your faith in something like that, nobody should be able to stop you. Doesn't make it any more reliable or legitimate though.
Or maybe, considering you're a software engineer, I can put it like this. If a client wants you to write code to fulfill a specific request, but your code only runs correctly 1 out of 100 times, will the client be okay with that? Or will they hire someone who has all of the relevant certifications, and can produce a product that runs every time? I know it's a real sloppy example, but we are comparing a hard science (computer engineering) and a soft science (psychology/sociology), so it's going to be apples and oranges regardless.
But if you tell me there's a life coach / relationship coach that also has a masters or a doctorate in psychology with focuses on interpersonal relationships, etc, then I will be far more willing to put faith in somebody like that than somebody who got a certificate saying they're capable of doing so and nothing else to back it up.
On a tangent, one of my favorite crafting youtube channels actually did underwater basket weaving before. It was a fun video.
I taught kids basketry when I was a teenager. We would often joke about doing it underwater. It's completely unnecessary and probably counterproductive, though -- it's not desirable for the reed to get too soft, either, and it can encourage mold growth.
That was definitely a great video. It also looked like a lot of fun, haha. If there's ever a DIWhy-esk topic on this site, highly recommend adding this video!
You can get an actual PADI underwater basket weaving scuba certification through an intentionally-recognized agency.
Though as an instructor for a competing agency, I just use that to make fun of PADI.
Oh man... I wanted this to be true so badly, and you weren't just pulling my leg. It exists! Thank you very much for pointing this out, it definitely made my day, hahaha.
I mean, it can definitely be a valid profession. But yeah, the title does not instil confidence.
Certainly you can call yourself a relationship coach, print up business cards, and get people to pay you. Totally agree with you there. But then again, Miss Cleo made an ungodly amount of money in the '90s and 2000s for her psychic tarot card readings, but I doubt any of us would call her a legitimate professional.
But hey, to each their own!
As valid as any name I could use for myself when starting my own business.
Actually according to her Instagram she is NLP + live coach certified.
Probably via the $19.99 course on Udemy.
Haha, oh I'm sure it is! I remember back around 2006, my buddies and I found out you could become ordained ministers online, and all of us jumped right on it. It took all of 10 minutes, and it was free unless you wanted to pay an extra $20 for a certificate you could frame and hang on the wall of your professional office/mom's basement.
Of course, we had the decency to treat it as the gag it was, and not get business cards printed up or try to dole out life advice to people.