comment on symbolism in relationships

[jay]

Dredged up from a conversation still going on in a month-old entry of mine...

[quote from bikerscum:]
Why does it devalue to you a sincere offer to babysit if you know that similar offers are made to others?

(grin) it doesn't! That's not my context. My context is: if offers to babysit are made to others, but not to me, then *I'm* devalued (not the offer) with respect to whatever set of others, in the network of the person making the babysitting offers. In a connectionist sense, my link-weighting estimate is reduced.

If the given person makes babysitting offers to a stranger-with-kids he's just met, but I'm supposedly a close friend of his and he's never offered (or refused my past request), then my estimation of the value of my friendship in that person's eyes is placed lower than that of someone he's just met -- i.e., practically zero.

In a third-grade context... (grin)

If mommy gives all the other kids a cookie but won't give me one, that means that she must love all of them more than me... If she gives one to the new kid that just moved in down the street, but not to me, then she must not love me at all, because she doesn't love the new kid at all (and I'm even less important that he is, because he gets a cookie and I don't).

That's over-simplified, but how I feel about symbolism... especially for publicly-displayed things. The "cookie" may be unimportant in itself, but as a token it conveys information about the state of a given friendship or relationship.

Comments

[bdot.livejournal.com]

interesting brian.....

i look at many things in much the same way. if him and her and i are all friends of 'z' and 'z' invites the other two someplace and not me, then i am less of a friend to 'z'. now i have since learned that this is not always true. in some cases, 'z' knows that i will not like (for example) whatever the activity is, so doesn't even mention it to me. it is not that i am less of a friend, but rather, 'z' knows me pretty well!

in the same breath, however, knowing that this is what is going on and not being hurt by it are two different things! i would much rather receive the invite and decline it of my own accord or; who knows, maybe the company would be worth enduring the event!

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(nods) if Z knows that you don't like the given activity, it could actually be considered a sign of affection that they *don't* invite you there. Although if I were Z, I'd want to formally offer [activity] at least once, just in case my assessment of your likes/dislikes was in error. As you alluded to in the receive/decline instance, if Z elects to not offer, you don't have a choice -- and you might have chosen to, say, go bowling in order to hang out with Z.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

/me is amused to note that it was a reply of yours in my journal that prompted me to look back in your journal for what you were reacting about and led me to the thread we've been exploring.

btw - I was about to start working up a reply to this in the old thread. Any preference from you on if I do that there or here?

Also - mind if I link to the discussion in my own journal? I've a few points I've been thinking of expanding on and that struck me as something I might want to do there.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

True, otherwise this entire subsidiary-thread would have remained unexplored :-).

Either place is OK with me...

You can link to it if you'd like... arguably I've cast myself in an unfavorable light, but that's rarely stopped me from airing things before ;-).

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

So - in this third grade context - fixating on the cookie forgets to remember the daily kiss goodnight, the bandaging of scraped knees, and the help with homework, not to mention birthday parties trips to grandma's, and getting to stay up late to watch the tele once in a while (things even less likely to be given out to the other neighborhood kids). All of these things, might also be offered to other kids, but the particular combination of them is probably a unique one to her child(ren).

And falling quickly to the extreme - maybe Mom does for whatever reason love the new kid down the street, maybe even more than her own kids. So what?! How does that necessitate a devaluation of her love for her own kids?

I understand why a 3rd grader wouldn't be able to see the context or rationally process the bigger picture - and shouldn't have to - that's why we don't consider 3rd graders mature adults capable of making their own decisions. How do you demonstrate to your kids (clearly, in terms that they accept) that going to work every day doesn't mean you don't love them? Or that you don't love them less on weekdays than you do on nights and weekends. Or that they shouldn't take your travel plans as abandonment?

then my estimation of the value of my friendship in that person's eyes is placed lower than that of someone he's just met

But, how apart from your choice to devalue the relationship does that other person's action devalue your relationship?

If you have what is perceived as a mutually (!= equally) valuable relationship with someone before you notice that they offer to babysit for other people - apart from your choice of reaction, how does the relationship change when you notice that offer elsewhere?

I can't see passed my interpretation of jealous pouting in this example to understand it better. It just doesn't at all parse for me.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

[puts on kids' green shirt ;]

It isn't just fixating on the cookie... that's oversimplified. There are lots of "cookies"... like those trips and bandages and birthday parties you mentioned. Or just time spent. Or a warm smile. Or any number of things... I take all of these into account, holistically, not just one isolated token. And there are other relationship-valuing processes going on inside my head than just symbolic-gestures, anyway. Words count, too... touch/physical affection... favors done/received... perseverance in the face of distress or rough times... those are all often out of public scrutiny, but "count" just like public tokens or symbols of affection.

But I don't view relationships of whatever sort as decoupled from others... I see them as interconnected. And if I'm assessing "how is the friendship with R going?", I have no independent, absolute metric for assessing R's actions and behaviors where I'm concerned. All I have to go by is how R's behaviors around me compare to those towards others in his/her network.

If R were fully self-realized and conscious of the internal implications of his/her behaviors, I could theoretically just ask R. But my observation is that that's not true of the vast majority of individuals.

my interpretation of jealous pouting in this example

I see that that's your interpretation... those words are rather loaded, and I'm trying to avoid being either defensive or counter-attacking here.

you have what is perceived as a mutually (!= equally) valuable relationship

Ah... but that itself presumes absolute standards of value, I think. Mine tend to be dynamic... the value is relative and changes over time. That babysitting-offer-not-extended, unless explained (like technomom's reasons) reflects a decision made by R, towards me. If I thought earlier that there was some probability P that R might offer babysitting (OB), that's just become P = 0.0 . Depending on the weight of OB to me, P(OB) had some nonzero probabilistic relationship value. So if R sets P(OB) =0, that's a net loss of value. It may be counterbalanced by R offering to meet me for lunch once a month, say, but then we're negotiating.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

First off:


It took some time to decide to include that though, and then considerably more to find a phrasing that expressed my stuff while not being an attack on you. I'm glad that you've chosen also to take it that way.

But I don't view relationships of whatever sort as decoupled from others... I see them as interconnected. And if I'm assessing "how is the friendship with R going?", I have no independent, absolute metric for assessing R's actions and behaviors where I'm concerned. All I have to go by is how R's behaviors around me compare to those towards others in his/her network.

Again - maybe we were socialized on different planets.

When I'm assessing "how is the relationship with R going?", I ask myself - first about my feelings about R. Do I look forward to seeing R, to making plans, to keeping up on zir life? Or do I dread those dealings? Or do I just not care? Am I too (much or little) emotionally involved for my own taste? What content of my life am I comfortable sharing details about with R? And am I comfortable with that level?

And then I ask myself how I interpret R's attitude and actions toward me on about those same criteria. I wonder then if our expectations of one another are in line with what we have (and have expressed wanting) to offer.

And if I'm happy (again - I tend to measure my own fulfillment in terms of happiness, YMetricMV) with my answers to the above then all is well. And if I'm not, then it's my job to do something about that. Almost always starting there by expressing my perceived disconnect to R and going from there.

And so, when R and I try to [go out] once a month, if I notice that R is now [going out] with S not just the once a month they'd been doing, but now weekly. I don't perceive that my relationship with R has been devalued. Now - if it turns out that from the change in R's frequency of [going out] with S that R is significantly less available to see me, then I might have an issue with R - about our change in interaction and how that relates to my expectations of our relationship. But that's about me and R and not related to S.

It sounds to me that you're interpretation is to note that you and R are on pretty good terms, and try to [go out] monthly, and that you perceive that R and S are on about the same terms as similarly ranked (though I'm not sure how one would go about categorizing this, or choosing to order it - let alone attempting to do so for other people's other relationships) types friends. But if R and S start [going out] on a weekly basis instead - you might start to feel devalued by R. Especially if you notice that R's friend T has also moved from a monthly to weekly frequency of [going out]. (Or U, V, W, and X, too - if my model is too prone to special case interpretation with only one or two friends.)

But I wonder - why are you setting your expectations based on other people's other relationships rather that on your own wants and interactions?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Again - maybe we were socialized on different planets.

(grin) maybe... I've said before that we seem like opposites, yin/yang in our socialization.

I ask myself - first about my feelings about R.

That's a key difference between us -- I find my own feelings to be unreliable and not very trustworthy. External inputs are more valuable to me.

Am I too (much or little) emotionally involved for my own taste?
I would mostly ignore my own feelings/taste, and look instead on how that degree of emotional involvement was affecting R and those around R and myself....

I tend to measure my own fulfillment in terms of happiness, YMetricMV

(nods) I place less importance on my own happiness, as we've discussed before. Duty, obligations to others, external impacts or validation all loom large for me.

I don't perceive that my relationship with R has been devalued.

Since your value of that relationship is driven internally -- by your own happiness with R -- I can see that whatever happens with S is of little importance to you (unless it affects R's availability or attitude towards you personally).

how one would go about categorizing this, or choosing to order it

Usually, I just ask R how R sees our friendship or relationship. Then I subsequently compare with those others to whom R refers similarly.

why are you setting your expectations based on other people's other relationships rather that on your own wants and interactions?

Again, my own reactions to my own wants and interactions are untrustworthy and unreliable. People's other relationships can be observed with more objectivity, I think. If R is going out three times a month with R, that's observable. My own feelings about my interactions with R are likely to be hard to describe (and change frequently).

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Make that, "If R is going out three times a month with S"...

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

No. Nonononono. I mean that you have a relationship that you perceive as being of (some) value to you and also of (some other, possibly the same) value to the other person. I don't mean static degrees of like/want/value/fulfillment or that they need at all be in synch.

---

That babysitting-offer-not-extended, unless explained (like technomom's reasons) reflects a decision made by R, towards me.

And this - hmmmn. I was taught that excuses were largely unnecessary - one's enemies don't care, and one's friends oughtn't. People have their reasons for their choices, and I ought to accept that they are capable of making their own reasonable for them choices. Much in the same way that when butting up against someone's personal boundaries - the appropriate questions are "what was the boundary?" and "how do I avoid hitting it in future?" but NOT "why would you feel like that?" until after some offer to discuss that, too by the other party.

If I thought earlier that there was some probability P that R might offer babysitting (OB), that's just become P = 0.0 . Depending on the weight of OB to me, P(OB) had some nonzero probabilistic relationship value. So if R sets P(OB) =0, that's a net loss of value. It may be counterbalanced by R offering to meet me for lunch once a month, say, but then we're negotiating.

Different planets, again. It doesn't serve this discussion to again ask "why would you set your expectations in that way?" Or frame your response as something that needs negotiated? I mean - it's consistent with the approach you've been describing - but I just can't fathom why you would choose to do that.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

excuses were largely unnecessary - one's enemies don't care, and one's friends oughtn't.

Hmmm... except that explanations ("my parenting style is incompatible, and I let my kids stay up until midnight") often ameliorate a refusal. Sometimes explanations are critical -- otherwise, I have no reason to not assume the worst.

no reason to not assume the worst

[mittelbar.livejournal.com]

Well, except, maybe, that in a purely logical sense, and in an anthropological sense (human motives are frequently mixed and complex), the worst isn't any more likely than the best. It might be to your emotional and social benefit to suspend assumption or assume tentatively something (or a few things) more in the middle of "worst" and "best" than on either end.

So that's a reason, I guess. Works better for me.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(wonders if you write in Lisp)

Sort of averaging? One could assume "just because someone can screw me over doesn't mean they will"...

[technomom]

I realize that the babysitting is just an example, but . . .

There are friends for whom I will babysit, and friends for whom I will not. That says nothing about how much I value the friendship - it usually has much more to do with how consonant our parenting practices are, and how appropriate my home is for babysitting their children in particular.

I'm much more likely to offer to watch a 6-year-old than a toddler, simply because our home is much better suited to that without major changes, and my personal activity restrictions aren't going to be as much of a problem with a 6-year-old.

I assume that others have their own standards, and don't try to make any judgments about their decisions without actually discussing the reasons behind them if I really feel that it's important.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

When you have to decline requests from the no-babysit friends, do you explain your boundaries and why it won't work? Or are they just left guessing? If someone explains to me why I'm being excluded, and is coherent, I don't feel left out so much -- in the past, I've actually felt warm that the person took the time to explain why.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

The "cookie" may be unimportant in itself, but as a token it conveys information about the state of a given friendship or relationship.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. You have a numbered of unexamined assumptions there, and they could well be working against you. I'm not sure that a discussion about rationales for babysitting or whatever is actually likely to make any difference -- or maybe it would. Maybe a little cognitive retraining would give you better filters to sort out real information from the static. And, to continue the metaphor, a bit of ground-truthing wouldn't hurt.

What distresses me is the emotion that I suspect may be underlying this concern with cookies: a desperate eagerness for any proof of affection, a terrible soul-wrenching fear that love might be taken away for any reason or none. I hate to see a friend in such pain.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

a bit of ground-truthing wouldn't hurt

Not sure what you mean, here...

I have only a small amount of trust that any given friendship or relationship will persist... undoubtedly conditioned as a teenager, when my friends sometimes would succumb to peer-pressure and disappear, or even unexpectedly turn against me. So I'm continually monitoring the health and status of my friendships and relationships, looking for any warning signs... this has exasperated partners at times, who in the past have actually asked me to "take them for granted" a bit more.