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

[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"...