Slashdot Mirror
Overconfidence May Be a Result of Social Politeness
An anonymous reader writes "Joyce Ehrlinger from Florida State University has researched this very phenomenon, and has led her to present a paper called 'Polite But Not Honest: How an Absence of Negative Social Feedback Contributes to Overconfidence' at the American Psychological Association's annual conference in Orlando on Friday. Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback. Her research recreated everyday social situations in which we hold back from giving our own negative views."
You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?
where anything goes!
negative feedback is acceptable if given constructively and pleasantly
nobody's perfect
...it's never stopped my fellow slashdoters from destroying my comment reputation. =]
Joyce is full of crap and a complete idiot. I am absolutely sure of this, by just reading the article summary here. believe me, I know what im talking about. PS, remember, negative feedback is good, positive feedback is bad, at least in audio systems.
It's been just about impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of anyone for decades, and it's almost impossible to curb inappropriate and in-your-face religious behaviors because of the sacrosanct rule that religion is somehow immune to interference from the secular world, and that's why religious craziness around the world is on the rise.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Joyce Ehrlinger from Florida State University is stupid! She has absolutely no idea what she's talking about! Pure rubbish! She should just drop out of the American Psychological Association right now and save us all a bunch of pain and headache! She has no idea what she's talking about! None! Pure bullox!
Anonymous Coward: FROST PIST
What the Moderators do: -5 Off Topic
What the Anonymous Coward sees: +5 Attention.
This is not how negative feedback was supposed to work.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Too bad that Americans don't get irony. At all.
Well your faith in your friends is yours.
"Politeness" does not mean no negative feedback... and never has.
One can be polite, and even friendly, while still giving negative feedback. This "no negative feedback" bullshit is a result of those defunct social theories that we had to bolster kids' self-esteem at the cost of truth.
As far as I am aware, this is the first time this has been a significant problem. As polite as societies have been in the past, negative feedback has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a problem.
But what's the alternative when you're running an empire? Faith in your friends?
I don't think so.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
I knew my being a dick was good for people.
You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?
Please tell that to Hillary Clinton
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That is why I have taken it up to myself to insult everybody I know.
Gone with the overconfidence.
Relevant:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Forget the partisan dig. Without overconfidence, there won't be any politicians. Everybody would be a bureaucrat waiting for a promotion.
Overconfidence is definitely not caused by politeness.
The next time you see someone win a silver or bronze just remember they are being rewarded for being a looser.
"Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback."
I've been hanging with the wrong crowd apparently! The social norm around here IS negative feedback!
For honest feedback, there is nothing like anonymity. You guys all suck ass by the way...
My interpretation: Social politeness did not spring up out of nowhere accidentally. There are good reasons for it. One is: The expected value to myself, if I were to correct some total stranger -- and risk their displeasure, argumentation, lost time, possible hostility -- is pretty much nil.
What do I care if some doofus loudmouth on the bus, or a convenience store, or a random psychological experiment I got thrown in, thinks they're funny or has nutjob political or religious beliefs? The chance of my opinion changing them is close to zero. Aside from that, the time and hassle expense to my day is probably significant; the chance of their reacting in a defensive and hostile manner is pretty high. Aside from that, my chance of running into them again ever in my life, such that I receive some later benefit is also nil. Hence the politeness protocol of smiling noncommittally and getting the hell away from them.
(Side issue: I've never understand "road age" of the ilk "I'll teach that bastard a lesson!". Given someone that cuts you off, you'll never see them again, so any lesson you could conceivably give won't generate you any benefit. Let 'em go and maximize your distance from the crazies.)
Now, if someone is being truly irrational and is an intimate of yours, such that you have to deal with them all the time, then the equation changes; being honest with them will hopefully improve your mutual relationship and time spent together. Conjecture -- Perhaps a society which increases mobility, depersonalization, and time spent with strangers has a propensity to become more and more dishonest and delusional.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
James Holmes
Any conversation over the internet should quickly solve that problem.
That's why Muslims think they're the religion of peace. People on't tell them they're not because they know they will get their head cut off for doing so.
According to this theory, if you are dont get negative feedback it makes you confident so you act polite and dishonest then conversely if you get a lot of negative feedback it makes you unsure of yourself so you are rude but truthful. I get a lot of flack for pointing these kind of things out but this this theory is total bunk.
OH SHIT! PARADOX!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
George Carlin totally warned us.
my cool story bro
I was a fitness instructor and my job was was to get flabbos at various degrees of decay into shape
you never said "that is terrible try harder" you always said "thats pretty good, you did X well, here is what you can do to make Y better"
if you truly want to help people you need to be willing to expend energy (time, attention) toward them
>>"You mean if no one tells me I suck, I won't think I suck?"
>"Please tell that to Hillary Clinton"
No, tell that to Monica Lewinsky. Because she did suck. Or at least the president told us so, and, he was the spouse to Hillary Clinton at the time.
it lets people get honest feedback. think of all the guys who are terrible at guitar but they play shitty songs for their girlfriend or whatever and she doesn't want to hurt his feelings so she tells him he's good. then he feels like he's the man so he videotapes himself and uploads to youtube. then when everyone tells him he sucks he cries about "haterz" but at least now he know the truth.
the problem is when somebody gives you a fake compliment if you say "oh spare me i know i suck" then they'll say some crap like "don't put urself down, i really liked it!" so it's like now when somebody gives you fake positive feedback you can't even tell them to fuck off you have to pretend to agree, that's the worst part of this problem. but again, nobody blows smoke up your ass on the internet so thank god for "internet haterz".
At my job, I guess I'm not socially polite at all. I give negative feed back all of the time. There's no positive way to tell someone that they did a horrible, horrible job, and they need to re-do it after formulating a coherent plan.
In my experience this overconfidence as a result of politeness is true in my workplace, and in past workplaces as well.
Being generally polite, and not giving explicit negative feedback to annoying, unfunny, awkward, disrupting people finds justification in a kind of tacit, unconscious consent to be accepting and tolerant of everyone.
This works kinda all right, and makes it for a peaceful, sometimes even happy environment, and reduces the chances for conflict.
I have witnessed two scenarios where this politeness strategy fails utterly to both create a pleasant environment and to avoid conflict.
One scenario is that of a massively disrupting individual, who is not aware of the consequences of his words and actions.
Sometimes, like a current temporary colleague of mine, the guy is actually not a bad person at all, he is just not very perceptive of subtle signals (like awkward silences etc), looks very much emotionally vulnerable and unstable, which makes it undesirable to confront him about the issue, and has probably never been explicitly and seriously criticized for his disruptive behavior, resulting in a combination of fragility and overconfidence.
Responding to such an individual seems to cause problems whichever strategy is employed (honesty, politeness, etc).
The other scenario is that of a smart, socially-aware, perceptive, self-serving truly evil person.
These people analyze these social situations carefully and are able to detect these weaknesses in the social construct, and take advantage of them. They are therefore able to belittle, disrupt, take advantage of, subvert, out-compete their co-workers, because they know that if they are subtle enough, if they target their attacks carefully enough, nobody will directly accuse them of anything.
Note that I know that I myself have issues with detecting more subtle messages, and I know that my ego is vulnerable to lack of negative feedback as well. I try to ask people around me for truthful advice when in doubt, but in general I profit from this tolerant, polite social construct as well.
I am not sure about how to organize a better social construct that is both honest and peaceful and tolerant, and I am not sure it is possible to do it in a perfect way for all situations and for all compositions of individuals.
It seems to be a long standing problem with establishing and enforcing norms in societies.
Everyone needs a good rival, even enemies. You know why? Friends are never honest with you. They'll tell you that you're doing good when you're actually doing bad. They don't criticize. They lie, they bullshit, they do everything they can to keep face with you, because they don't want to feel bad for making you feel bad. Too often the truth hurts the person telling it much more than the person who's supposed to be listening.
When you screw up around your enemies, though, they don't hesitate to be critical. They don't care about your feelings. They'll lay into you. They don't have a reputation to protect with you, and they have every reason to dig at your self-perception and undermine your big fat ego. They're much more honest, because they don't think that you expect them to lie and they wouldn't give a rat's ass if you did.
This is what trust is in the age of political correctness and inflated self esteem - taking comfort in the knowledge that while your friends will stab you in the back, your foes will stab you in the gut. A saccharine culture of perpetual lying.
only way to go: mod points and Don't be afraid the project as 4 moronic, dilettante they want you to distributions OS I do, because users aal over the than make a sincere
"It's been just about impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of anyone for decades"
Try millenia, "blasphemy" at least in western Europe is very old, with punishment varying depending on the century & country.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Sir, you are irrational...if every third post you make is to confirm that you don't regard large swatch of people individuals because it dosent fit the narrative of the social hysteria you and your circle jerk keeps howling.
Then you are an extremist, I'm sure you and the rest of your "band gallant knights of western civillisation" are proud to hold the line and have uncovered the great of leftist establishment driving the nation to suicide.
You are probably frustrated, by the creeping horde you keep see being blocked out by the sheeple, people calling you a moron and epithets.
To think...calling you...a concerned citizen born rightwise...with the rest of your nationborn...that hold their head high.
Must irritate you...make you stubborn and thus irrational.. must take a strong will to break out of that cycle.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
It depends on where you are. In the Netherlands, social norms do not prevent people from giving negative feedback. But most men are still overconfident.
no, I don't have a sig
Fuck you, please.
I hate to bring up something like Americal Idol (and its predecessor Pop Idol) in somewhere like Slashdot, but I think it's relevant.
In the UK Pop Idol, the judges were always honest - if they found someone who couldn't sing, they told them they couldn't sing. They told them to not give up the day job, to abandon their dream of being a pop star. On the flip side, if they were good, the judges said so - and because of that it really meant something.
In the few bits of American Idol I've seen, it's totally different. The judges (I seem to remember Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson in particular) when presented with someone who clearly didn't have a hope in hell of becoming a star of any kind, tied themselves in knots trying to say something positive. They just didn't ahve it in them to say "You're not a singer, forget about it". They'd say "You need to work hard to improve your rhythm" or " You're great but you're just not what we're looking for", and so on. Simon Cowell gave much more honest opinions and built a huge business out of doing it - but he was seen as Captain Negativity, the joke one, with the other two encouraging the no-hopers to keep their dream.
The result? People in the UK who got that negative feedback accept (sometimes reluctantly) that they won't ever be a star and go back to singing in the shower and leading a normal life. People in the US don't have that reality check, so keep on trying, making themselves look more and more ridiculous, desperate and above all untalented.
If the goal is to get the other person to listen and reflect upon the criticism, then saying it "straight forward, no sugar, no BS" is counter-productive in the vast majority of cases.
We have a guy at work that is such a pain to talk to that we all kind of walk away when he starts saying things incorrectly. That leads to him thinking that he knows what he is talking about. And if he challenges your facts, he responds with name calling.
I know of at least three people that told me they avoid him for technical questions unless he is the only one knowing the answer. I'm sure the fact that he always seems to know the answer whenever someone comes to him leads to overconfidence. His ego is unbelievable. He thinks he is infallible.
Well, you are very quick to criticise me for saying that Islam isn't peaceful. I bet you don't criticise Muslims who say that apostates should be killed, support honour killings, oppress women, etc.
The US is perhaps a good place to be polite. Robert A. Heinlein noted, "An armed society is a polite society." Okay. That may be a bit of hyperbolic humor. But, whatever the reason, in my experience your cross-cultural observation is correct.
I once had a French boss. An editor to be exact. He was blunt to the point of cruelty from my point of view. Others also found him so -- especially the Americans. But we published a damned good magazine. And I learned a lot from him. And, to be fair, he was as hard on himself as he was on us. Brits are also a bit more blunt than Americans I have observed.
Personally, I make a distinction between constructive honesty and brutal frankness. That said, people in a workplace need to develop a thick hide or standards never get raised. However, create too much of a negative atmosphere and potentially good ideas are suppressed. Finally, when finishing a product you need somebody in charge with a sharp eye and a sharp tongue.
"Woolman, if you don't come in Sunday and fix this copy, then don't bother to come in Monday. Now get out."
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
To others, anyone who cuts religion any slack is automatically the Bad Guy.
Unless it's the Church of the SubGenius, of course.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Is it any wonder why rarefied blunt appraisal is so highly rewarded? Perhaps underconfidence is responsible for this incessant need to be liked?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The UK is by far the most hypocritical place I've ever lived in with regards to honest feedback - around here the feedback you hear is always a 7 or an 8 on a scale of 10 (everything is great or wonderful, even when it's shit), to the point that if you comment that something was "nice" (i.e. a 6 out of 10), people feel insulted (you see, "nice" is what people say around here when they mean "not nice").
Coming from Holland (home to some of the most direct, straight-talking people in the face of the planet), the whole British Politness sounds majorly deceitful.
The worse thing is that they do this to the kids at school: every kid is a special person and they can't be told negative things, so they're all told how great they are and get good grades for bad work (around here, there is a huge amount of grade inflation in the national tests, to the point that getting the highest grade is common).
Unsurprisingly, the UK produces nothing, has the highest debt levels in the world, specializes in Finance and Lawyering and has huge levels of white collar crime (of which the LIBOR scandal is just the tip).
Perhaps more apropos: Do new architects overdo structural integrity?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Because everybody want to be their friend for the wrong reasons.
This phenomenon is likely behind the fact that US kids think they are great at math (but they aren't) and Asian kids think they are not good (but they are). This has been well documented in the education literature. Just another consequence of the "trophy for everybody" mentality of the USA.
A: Konnichiwa :)
B: Waaa, nihongo jouzu desu ne!!!
There isn't much difference between 'etiquette' and 'codependency.'
Thank you for that excellent article.
I'll bet this research hits two singularities: politics and YouTube. Argue the difference between politeness and positive feedback as you like, but I rarely see either employed here.
Obviously you have managed to make the wrong kind of friends, also prepare to be disappointed in the world Britain is in the lower half when it comes to this sort of stuff. Also the level of over softening of the feedback to children in school is a ongoing political issue, most people I know think it is stupid and actively harmful to the kids so talking like most people think it is a good thing is stupid.
You also strongly over exaggerate both the level of softening and misunderstand some of the social clues. Nice means that something is good, NOT that it is relatively good compared to others at the same level of effort. If something done normally is a good thing (eg cooking where a normal effort skill level and ingredients list produce a positive result) then anything other than a failure is "nice". If someone has put a lot of effort in for something that would normally be good you have just told them they did an "average" job, perhaps even low average or just a not failed. Obviously if this is something they have not tried hard for, that is not so important to them, or that usually is not so good, then this is a complement. If it is something they have put a lot more effort into than normal that would have already been expected to be good then this is dismissive and belittling at best.
Also EVERY part of the last statement you make is either unfounded (reed made up because it feels right) or a lie.
Not making anything- we do make things, our manufacturing is week compared to other countries but it is there, car parts and cars ships steal mills food and farming ect...
Let us see about the debt, the latest stats I can find do not put Britain as the worst in teams of debt per capita or per GDP or in total not by a long shot!! so what the heck have you been reading, are you one of those idiots that believe the Right wing press witch will take any argument to cut as much of the government as possible even when its a lie?
specializes in Finance and Lawyering? Finance yes unfortunately but Lawyering no! Where did you get that idea? We are not good on this point and need to reduce the levels but saying we specialise in lawyering is just made up.
Huge levels of white collar crime? what stats do you base this on? I have tried looking but can not find anything, it is not just the British banks that were involved in the LIBOR scandal, several other countries have investigations and some have made arrests/admitted fault nor was the London rate the only one meddled with. Britain does have more bankers so more banking crime would be expected, however do you know what the crime rate per banker is? If the rate is not worse then a larger quantity says nothing about Britain or its culture.
The problem lies in taking the judgement of others more seriously than reflection and criticizing yourself. Modern herd man has no self and is just flapping in the breeze. But of course, it's not polite to point that out towards a specific individual. We can all agree that it's generally a problem, or a problem of other people, but beyond that... "who are you to criticize me?"
Yet the more grounded and peaceful you yourself become, the easier it is to notice wobblyness in others, and I think if one keeps that up long enough, they might also find a way to criticize without making the other feel bad, that is, without them feeling attacked. There is a way of calmly stating things with strong, yet cleaminded conviction, that is pretty much impossible to fuck with.
We don't like to be criticized, but who doesn't love being schooled in a way that may be harsh in that it breaks previously held beliefs, but is still well-meant? We all do and receive that in little ways all the time (when someone pressed the wrong button at the elevator, it's no biggie to press the right one while smiling at them, is it.. and when someone dropped something, they also don't mind if you point that out to them, or even pick it up for them). It's just when it comes closer to the ego, or even lack of self, when it all can get hairy fast. But the principle is the same IMHO.
My slashdot post history proves what a shitty hypocrite I am when I say the above things, but they're still true as far as I can tell.
...That social norms are a contributing factor to overconfidence. NOT that social politeness results in overconfidence.
Big difference to the title and summary. But practically what the article did say approaches a level of, "No shit, Sherlock." Even the article, though, is confused as it presents individual anecdotes (or individual behavior) as how social norms are constructed and I believe reality is more complicated than that.
IMO the problem starts with a generation of parents that were told to only give positive feedback and encourage every little effort by their child to improve "self esteem". These children grew into adults that don't know how to handle *any* criticism, even when constructive. This resulted in social norms against being critical, even in a constructive way, because too many people were getting butt-hurt over every little criticism.
And that's how we get a generation of jerks who think they are perfect.
the perpetuation of obvious falsehoods within a specific culture or ideology, for lack of active (if impolite) correction.
This. Fake and insecure people annoy the piss out of me.
I have relatively few friends (51 if you ask Facebook, and that includes family; less if you count people I actually hang out with [or would if they weren't on the other side of the country]) and I recognize the reason for this as my blatant honesty.
Or possibly you have very few friends because you're an asshole. And smug. Or, very likely, both.
Those people who remain in my life appreciate the honesty
Or at least, you think they appreciate it. If you'd read the article linked, you would discover that they actually don't appreciate what you call "honesty," but they're just too polite to tell you off.
My German friend used the word "Prepone" in conversation not so long back. The opposite of "Postpone", he meant. He made it up.
No, he didn't. That's a common word... in Indian English ("Indian" here to be understood as meaning "from India").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English#Vocabulary_and_colloquialisms
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prepone
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Since we're being honest here: No it isn't, and no, it isn't.
On good manners:
On the subject of honesty:
The point is, if you are going to treat someone with real politeness, you should be prepared to tell them the whole truth. Tell it objectively, tell it honestly, and with every consideration of how they might perceive the message. But tell the truth! Anything less does them a great disservice.
Makini Brice, I know you can write better ... if only someone would deliver the sad news: you have no brain, or your choose not to use it. You can't even come up with "bell the cat" or "free rider problem" while you pussy-foot through the bullshit slough? Not even the five-bell go-to cliches handed out as black-tie MSM fig leaves of faux decorum by the maitre-d' at the Michelin-rated nudist resort? Shame on you.
I've belled more than my fair share of cats in my day, including some with a history of emergency admission into psychiatric care. What happens when you offer a concerned a thoughtful glimmer of reality to a person who knows, deep down, that their own reality is a little thin on the ground? In simple terms, the person usually goes binary: either you have to sign up to provide the reality augmentation service 24x7 or they want you to fuck off as promptly as possible. These people crave little windows onto a stable system of reality like Heroin junkies. They aren't in it for a once-a-week booster shot. All or nothing, not much in between.
I've done this, too, at the other end of the spectrum: with fantastically sane and competent people who might have some bright ember of self-destruction that turns a small removable discontinuity--a pinhole of infernal blackness--into a swollen vortex of life sucking creosote-toffee. In this world, as you approach the center, the shortest distance between any two points is a spiral of infinite length. You kind of have to make a fire break by cutting down a lot of healthy trees and tossing them into the inferno, which will surely curl your toe hairs in response to the insult. Bonus: if you don't flinch, they come back for more. You have to stand there in the cross-hairs of the flame thrower attached to a gasoline pumper truck and go: let's get rid of the knife. What knife? The folded knife in your back pocket. What pocket? The back pocket that prevents your ass from bursting right through those insanely tight jeans. When dealing with the flame-thrower that burns like hell, you need to bear in mind that even a small penknife can cut your balls off. The trick is to fight over the knife and not the flame thrower. This is difficult and fraught--you need to dial your asbestos underwear up to 11 and keep it there for weeks at a time. At the end of the day your affection is carried off to the burn ward with 3rd degree burns over 80% of its body, but sometimes after it all blows over, a very nice memorial wreath is erected in your honour at Vimy Ridge.
I'm a bit of a writer at heart, so I sometimes dabble in the occult arts where "what's in it for me" has no answer a sane person would recognize. A sane person laughs at water-cooler Joe's latest bad joke and gets the hell out.
If that were really the case, then I suppose the Japanese must be most overconfident society that has ever existed.
Obligatory link to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Although the Dunning-Kruger effect was put forward in 1999, David Dunning and Justin Kruger have quoted Charles Darwin ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge")[3] and Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")[4] as authors who have recognised the phenomenon.
Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others.
Not only that, but I would imagine that overestimating your abilities may make it more difficult to improve, because you already think so highly of your skills. The only thing confidence, whether warranted by your skills or attributes or not, is good for is scoring chicks. Girls are compulsively attracted to confidence whether the confidence is justified or not. If you are not confident you pretty much have to fake it if you want an attractive girlfriend. For everything else confidence just makes it less likely that you will ever improve your skills.
I've often thought that women have a greater tendency to overestimate their attractiveness than men, and I have to wonder if they receive more positive feedback about their looks even if they are rather ordinary looking and less negative feedback because they aren't typically the ones doing the asking. I've certainly met more women who seem to overestimate how hot they are than men.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"Social norms, Ehrlinger says, are the reason that we are averse to giving negative feedback. Her research recreated everyday social situations in which we hold back from giving our own negative views."
Somebody introduce her to the internet so she can test her hypothesis... perhaps on /. LOL
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
I've noticed that, unlike Americans, Colombians have no qualms about telling someone he looks fat. "Man, you've gained a lot of weight, buddy -- better hit the gym." Polite Americans would not do that.
I've also met very few fat Colombians and a whole lot of fat Americans. And don't get your panties in a twist -- I'm a fat American myself, but I'm working on it. Yes, I said "fat" -- not "big boned", "overweight", "thick", or any other euphemism for fat. Fat is fat.
Maybe some honesty about being fat would make some fat people get off their fat asses and do something about it.
On a different subject with the same theme: Have you ever met anyone who thinks she can sing, but she really has at best a mediocre voice? Know why? Its because all her life, her mommy and daddy told her she had a beautiful singing voice. Then every time she sang for her friends, they would reinforce that fiction. Now she leaps out of her seat at every possible opportunity to sing, and just makes everyone embarrassed. If nobody had lied to her all those years, she could just make a fool of herself at karaoke like the rest of us, but instead she has to make us all cringe at every occasion.
In Reason We Trust
You Deserve What you Tolerate. nuff said.
I think I'm going to propose on the spot to Ms. Ehrlinger. I'm in love. ^_^