...a better strategy than Tit for Tat emerges: Tit for Two Tats (IYKWIM)
May 20, 2013 5:59 PM Subscribe
Mod note: Don't pre-doom the thread folks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:57 PM on May 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:57 PM on May 20, 2013 [5 favorites]
Pope Guilty, I hope you don't find this offensive, but gun rights folks have the same problem. It's very difficult to discuss problems within the community without it coming off as an admission of guilt to those predisposed to see you as "guilty" of something.
I takes some courage to stand up for an unpopular lifestyle.
Full disclosure: I have both owned guns and participated in a polyamorous relationship. I currently do neither.
posted by MoTLD at 7:04 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I takes some courage to stand up for an unpopular lifestyle.
Full disclosure: I have both owned guns and participated in a polyamorous relationship. I currently do neither.
posted by MoTLD at 7:04 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I do find the whole Prisoner's Dilemma thing interesting though. (I did a thing about the PD as adapted to a Dating Game sort of situation, but it doesn't have anything to do with the polyamory tip... or the stripping version either.)
For me, though, I think the idea of relationships as Prisoner's Dilemma is just sort of sad. It seems to me that if you're treating a relationship as a chance to defect PD style, you're doing it wrong.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 7:04 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
For me, though, I think the idea of relationships as Prisoner's Dilemma is just sort of sad. It seems to me that if you're treating a relationship as a chance to defect PD style, you're doing it wrong.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 7:04 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I once did a game-theoretic analysis of Free Software and rms contacted me which led to talk about polyamory. Somehow.
posted by DU at 7:12 PM on May 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by DU at 7:12 PM on May 20, 2013 [7 favorites]
The biggest problem I see with trying to apply a Prisoner's Dilemma model to polyamory is that people can, in fact, talk to each other. They can talk to the person they are involved with and they can also talk to the other people that person is involved with. Prisoner's Dilemma assumes no chance to communicate. It seems ridiculous to me to apply that idea to this circumstance.
posted by Michele in California at 7:20 PM on May 20, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Michele in California at 7:20 PM on May 20, 2013 [10 favorites]
PS - Pope Guilty, no pun on your name was intended, or even recognized by me until it was too late.
posted by MoTLD at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by MoTLD at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2013
Yup, DU, it was for you, and it's a story I for one would love to hear, here if appropriate or elsewhere if not. But do tell! :)
posted by MoTLD at 7:24 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by MoTLD at 7:24 PM on May 20, 2013
Well, in TFA, the delimma was applied to meeting a lover's lover, so it's actually appropriate in that they haven't yet communicated:
Meeting a lover's other lover presents a host of opportunity for cooperation or defection. You can reach out to the other person and try to make that person feel welcome; you can be closed up and defensive to that person; you can even be actively hostile to that person. And, of course, your lover's lover has similar choices.
posted by MoTLD at 7:34 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Meeting a lover's other lover presents a host of opportunity for cooperation or defection. You can reach out to the other person and try to make that person feel welcome; you can be closed up and defensive to that person; you can even be actively hostile to that person. And, of course, your lover's lover has similar choices.
posted by MoTLD at 7:34 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
My problem with it is, my background in polyamory and so much of the study of the theory and practice I did back when it was a new, appealing idea that I didn't know how to approach talked about how this is not something you can enter into without doing a lot of emotional work and being willing to actively assess and continually address issues with your partners.
This is also true of monogamous relationships, is the thing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:38 PM on May 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
This is also true of monogamous relationships, is the thing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:38 PM on May 20, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, I read the article. It still makes no sense to me. Framing it that way suggests your lover is the equivalent of the prosecution (police, whoever) who is trying to trap one or both of you into doing something that could hurt one or both of you for the benefit of the prosecution.
I would think there is not typically that kind of hostile power dynamic going on. You can have your lover politely introduce the two of you. How that piece gets handled has big impact. It is a social setting, not a diaboloical plot to see who loses their nerve and stabs the other in the back.
posted by Michele in California at 7:42 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would think there is not typically that kind of hostile power dynamic going on. You can have your lover politely introduce the two of you. How that piece gets handled has big impact. It is a social setting, not a diaboloical plot to see who loses their nerve and stabs the other in the back.
posted by Michele in California at 7:42 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah -- I'm not sure what the lover has to gain if you (or the lover's lover) decides to be a dick to the other. And, while I know jealousy is a thing it just seems that it's in your best interest to treat the other as a potential friend. It seems that if your lover digs the other, and you dig the lover, there's a decent shot that the other will be a good person too? It's not a given, but... it just seems that probability is on your side. And if it is, hey, new friend!
I don't know, people are weird. Being nice just always seems like the way to go, given default conditions.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 7:45 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't know, people are weird. Being nice just always seems like the way to go, given default conditions.
posted by Rev. Syung Myung Me at 7:45 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, I read the article. It still makes no sense to me.
Yeah, me neither.
I think it's a tortured analogy which starts falling apart immediately:
Reaching out to someone makes you vulnerable. If two people both reach out to one another, then things will tend to go more smoothly; but if one person reaches out and the other is defensive or hostile, the consequences for the person who reaches out can be pretty dire. A strictly rationalistic approach might suggest that the best strategy is to be defensive, because if you're defensive, you have nothing to gain but nothing to lose either, whereas if you reach out, you might gain something--but you might lose a great deal, as well.
Really? I don't think so. The consequences are 'dire' when you're talking about jail sentences, but there are no dire consequences to reaching out to someone and being rebuffed. This is not some zero-sum game where there can only be so much 'niceness' between the two of you and if you do all the giving, they automatically get to be an asshole. In fact, the only likely consequence of being the one who reaches out is your partner will think you're a nicer, more adult person than the rebuffer.
posted by Salamander at 8:32 PM on May 20, 2013
Yeah, me neither.
I think it's a tortured analogy which starts falling apart immediately:
Reaching out to someone makes you vulnerable. If two people both reach out to one another, then things will tend to go more smoothly; but if one person reaches out and the other is defensive or hostile, the consequences for the person who reaches out can be pretty dire. A strictly rationalistic approach might suggest that the best strategy is to be defensive, because if you're defensive, you have nothing to gain but nothing to lose either, whereas if you reach out, you might gain something--but you might lose a great deal, as well.
Really? I don't think so. The consequences are 'dire' when you're talking about jail sentences, but there are no dire consequences to reaching out to someone and being rebuffed. This is not some zero-sum game where there can only be so much 'niceness' between the two of you and if you do all the giving, they automatically get to be an asshole. In fact, the only likely consequence of being the one who reaches out is your partner will think you're a nicer, more adult person than the rebuffer.
posted by Salamander at 8:32 PM on May 20, 2013
When I was in a triad I always felt like I was somehow winning life. This is part of why.
Then when it turned into a noisy shrieking breakup for a few months and one boyfriend went back on a promise about living with some people I was iffy about to start with, I was pretty miserable. But then I reconciled with both boyfriends; they don't live with me, but I see one pretty much every week, and the other every month or two, and am on friendly terms with both.
I can definitely analyze this as noisy, iterated prisoner's dilemma. B1 defected, I got very angry at him, B2 got angry at me for that. I move out (with help from both boyfriends); I forgive B1*, B2 forgives me, and everyone continues getting fairly regular pettings and whatnot.
As to there not being dire consequences? If any of the three of us had fucked this game of Prisoner's Dilemna up, B1 would not have a regular excuse to get away from the high social cost of being a major source of emotion repair for the house they live in and various people in related circles, B2 would have to deal with a much more generally stressed B1, and I would be Sad And Alone. (Admittedly it is also possible that B1 would have found other ways to vent that social stress, and that I might have thrown myself into finding a new lover and found someone better for me - but those are big maybes!)
And of course in other poly situations there is the dire consequence of "my partner likes their new lover tons more than me and leaves me for them entirely". Which is probably MORE likely to happen if you choose the "betray" choice several times by being controlling/possessive/pissy/etc about the new lover. Hey here is my cool new toy! I hate your cool new toy. Oh yeah well I hate YOU!
* mostly; it is still a bit of a sore point but we've worked around it
posted by egypturnash at 9:08 PM on May 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Then when it turned into a noisy shrieking breakup for a few months and one boyfriend went back on a promise about living with some people I was iffy about to start with, I was pretty miserable. But then I reconciled with both boyfriends; they don't live with me, but I see one pretty much every week, and the other every month or two, and am on friendly terms with both.
I can definitely analyze this as noisy, iterated prisoner's dilemma. B1 defected, I got very angry at him, B2 got angry at me for that. I move out (with help from both boyfriends); I forgive B1*, B2 forgives me, and everyone continues getting fairly regular pettings and whatnot.
As to there not being dire consequences? If any of the three of us had fucked this game of Prisoner's Dilemna up, B1 would not have a regular excuse to get away from the high social cost of being a major source of emotion repair for the house they live in and various people in related circles, B2 would have to deal with a much more generally stressed B1, and I would be Sad And Alone. (Admittedly it is also possible that B1 would have found other ways to vent that social stress, and that I might have thrown myself into finding a new lover and found someone better for me - but those are big maybes!)
And of course in other poly situations there is the dire consequence of "my partner likes their new lover tons more than me and leaves me for them entirely". Which is probably MORE likely to happen if you choose the "betray" choice several times by being controlling/possessive/pissy/etc about the new lover. Hey here is my cool new toy! I hate your cool new toy. Oh yeah well I hate YOU!
* mostly; it is still a bit of a sore point but we've worked around it
posted by egypturnash at 9:08 PM on May 20, 2013 [3 favorites]
Given that I'm a lady and my exes are both guys, I guess you could say a strategy of "tat for two tits" worked out pretty well.
Sorry. I'll see myself out.
posted by egypturnash at 9:09 PM on May 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
Sorry. I'll see myself out.
posted by egypturnash at 9:09 PM on May 20, 2013 [8 favorites]
I'm surprised it got this many comments in without that joke being made, honestly. Unless that was the aforementioned pre-doom...
posted by axiom at 9:26 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by axiom at 9:26 PM on May 20, 2013
My perspective is that of the second boyfriend. I had a couple of month long dalliance with a married couple who had a long history of polyamory, the female half of whom was an old friend of mine and had had a crush on me long before marrying him. Initially, I was very open and the husband and I were friends, but eventually he allowed jealousy to overcome him, and I found many things I had been open about turned very hurtfully against me. I left, amidst death threats, a year ago.
If that doesn't demonstrate exactly the iterative prisoner's dilemma, as described, well... ;)
The postscript is that he sought treatment for a condition which caused much of the undue aggression, they got counseling, I offered forgiveness, and we are still friends, though we don't keep in touch. I look forward to our next visit, whether or not we all decide that she and I, or the three of us, will engage in any sexual activity.
posted by MoTLD at 9:33 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
If that doesn't demonstrate exactly the iterative prisoner's dilemma, as described, well... ;)
The postscript is that he sought treatment for a condition which caused much of the undue aggression, they got counseling, I offered forgiveness, and we are still friends, though we don't keep in touch. I look forward to our next visit, whether or not we all decide that she and I, or the three of us, will engage in any sexual activity.
posted by MoTLD at 9:33 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm really not a fan of polyamory because I'm pretty sure I know how it would turn out; the rich will monopolize all of the mates while everyone else gets lonely and generates unrest. So, I kind of like the way society works now. It's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma, except if you defect a man runs into the room and sets you on fire.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:01 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:01 PM on May 20, 2013
Sorry for what both of you have been through.
I am abundantly familiar with both Prisoner's Dilemma and the tit for tat strategy. They were both covered in a college class I had many years ago on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, during which I cleaned up in the mock negotiations which were our final exercise. I don't see it as being a good model for a situation where people can, in fact, communicate. The fact that there is conflict and betrayal is not the defining feature of PD. It is the outcome scheme and pressure to make a binary decision without ability to get feedback which defines it.
I had an amicable divorce, in part because we did not lawyer up so we did not have lawyers telling us to not talk to each other, thereby creating incentives to try to "betray." I could talk to my husband, thus there was no Prisoner's Dilemma. During my divorce, I had a relationship to two men. They were friends before they met me. One of them introduced me to the other. There were, at times, conflicts. Both relationships ended around the same time, unrelated to the other. It was pretty anticlimactic.
These two men did, at times, say one thing to each other's face and another behind each other's back. And then I would call them on their bs. Because I could. I wasn't locked in a cell, actively denied opportunity to communicate, trying to decide something with no feedback.
So I just don't see it as really fitting the definition of Prisoner's Dilemma and no amount of personal anecdotes is likely to convince me that it does.
(PS: One lady plus two men should involve two tits and two tats, n'est pas?)
posted by Michele in California at 10:22 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am abundantly familiar with both Prisoner's Dilemma and the tit for tat strategy. They were both covered in a college class I had many years ago on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, during which I cleaned up in the mock negotiations which were our final exercise. I don't see it as being a good model for a situation where people can, in fact, communicate. The fact that there is conflict and betrayal is not the defining feature of PD. It is the outcome scheme and pressure to make a binary decision without ability to get feedback which defines it.
I had an amicable divorce, in part because we did not lawyer up so we did not have lawyers telling us to not talk to each other, thereby creating incentives to try to "betray." I could talk to my husband, thus there was no Prisoner's Dilemma. During my divorce, I had a relationship to two men. They were friends before they met me. One of them introduced me to the other. There were, at times, conflicts. Both relationships ended around the same time, unrelated to the other. It was pretty anticlimactic.
These two men did, at times, say one thing to each other's face and another behind each other's back. And then I would call them on their bs. Because I could. I wasn't locked in a cell, actively denied opportunity to communicate, trying to decide something with no feedback.
So I just don't see it as really fitting the definition of Prisoner's Dilemma and no amount of personal anecdotes is likely to convince me that it does.
(PS: One lady plus two men should involve two tits and two tats, n'est pas?)
posted by Michele in California at 10:22 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mitrovarr: It's true that's how traditional forms of polygyny play out, but adding in gender egalitarian ideology changes the mix. The pitfalls of widespread polygyny are avoided if you keep the average number of partners equal across genders. It's the imbalance that drives mate depletion and resulting instability, not the mere fact of having multiple partners.
That said, I don't think you can find many people into polyamory who would advocate its adoption on that kind of scale anyway, so it's sort of a moot point.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:27 PM on May 20, 2013
That said, I don't think you can find many people into polyamory who would advocate its adoption on that kind of scale anyway, so it's sort of a moot point.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:27 PM on May 20, 2013
Not that I know for sure that the average number of partners ratio is 1 in actually existing poly communities, it probably isn't. But it's closer to one than in religious polygyny, pretty much by definition.
I wonder if anyone's done any analysis on what that ratio is in different communities. Anyone know?
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:31 PM on May 20, 2013
I wonder if anyone's done any analysis on what that ratio is in different communities. Anyone know?
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:31 PM on May 20, 2013
the rich will monopolize all of the mates while everyone else gets lonely and generates unrest.
That works if only one of the sexes is doing the monopolizing, such as if rich men have harems and there are not enough wives for poor men. In a gender equal society the poor men can be in the harems of rich women, mates for everyone!
posted by Mayhembob at 10:43 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
That works if only one of the sexes is doing the monopolizing, such as if rich men have harems and there are not enough wives for poor men. In a gender equal society the poor men can be in the harems of rich women, mates for everyone!
posted by Mayhembob at 10:43 PM on May 20, 2013 [1 favorite]
Michele in California, your point is valid, the PD truly only applies in this scenario to the initial meeting of strangers, and even then only assuming the common partner hasn't done some communicating on the others' behalf, which they certainly should.
However, looking at it less literally, it makes a good allegory, which I think is what the author was aiming for.
Is there a variation on the PD which includes communication between the parties and might be more applicable?
posted by MoTLD at 10:53 PM on May 20, 2013
However, looking at it less literally, it makes a good allegory, which I think is what the author was aiming for.
Is there a variation on the PD which includes communication between the parties and might be more applicable?
posted by MoTLD at 10:53 PM on May 20, 2013
This is an interesting exercise for self-examination, but seems ultimately bound in theoretical-land. Other relationships develop, they don't spring forth fully-fledged, and in my observation, are rarely that much of an unknown "stranger" to someone's existing/primary partner.
posted by desuetude at 11:05 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by desuetude at 11:05 PM on May 20, 2013
Say what you will about Tat, I have to admire him for getting so much tit. (More tit for Tat?)
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:39 PM on May 20, 2013
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:39 PM on May 20, 2013
Is there a variation on the PD which includes communication between the parties and might be more applicable? posted by MoTLD at 10:53 PM on May 20 [+] [!]
Not that I know of. And although I do understand what the author is going for, I really do not like it as a mental model. I am disinclined to be grudging or vindictive but I do not think this "forgiveness" model works. As described, it is pretty manipulative and somewhat assumes bad faith. I think working towards real understanding and real solutions to problems is a better model for polyamory.
I had a fall out with one of the men. He was being a real ass. I understood why but was unwilling to "give in" because I was unwilling to accept the concequences and let his personal baggage run everything. I discussed it via IM with the other man, who printed out our lengthy conversation without my permission and brought it to his friend. It was the opposite of PD in that there was an additional channel of communication available when two of us hit a snag. Reading what I said, he decided to stop being an ass and not try to force me to give in.
So, in my experience, more communication works far better than counting tits and tats.
posted by Michele in California at 5:17 AM on May 21, 2013
Not that I know of. And although I do understand what the author is going for, I really do not like it as a mental model. I am disinclined to be grudging or vindictive but I do not think this "forgiveness" model works. As described, it is pretty manipulative and somewhat assumes bad faith. I think working towards real understanding and real solutions to problems is a better model for polyamory.
I had a fall out with one of the men. He was being a real ass. I understood why but was unwilling to "give in" because I was unwilling to accept the concequences and let his personal baggage run everything. I discussed it via IM with the other man, who printed out our lengthy conversation without my permission and brought it to his friend. It was the opposite of PD in that there was an additional channel of communication available when two of us hit a snag. Reading what I said, he decided to stop being an ass and not try to force me to give in.
So, in my experience, more communication works far better than counting tits and tats.
posted by Michele in California at 5:17 AM on May 21, 2013
I feel like publicly acknowledging this stuff provides people who've never given the matter any serious thought with an excuse to say "See? There's discussions within the community of the issues that they run into! Obviously polyamory is terrible!"
Sure, but... you can replace "polyamory" in that paragraph with basically anything that involves humans. The "people who've never given the matter any serious thought" demographic are a real-life Internet Comment Section; those fucks are vocal and everywhere, and they should always be ignored.
posted by mhoye at 7:54 AM on May 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sure, but... you can replace "polyamory" in that paragraph with basically anything that involves humans. The "people who've never given the matter any serious thought" demographic are a real-life Internet Comment Section; those fucks are vocal and everywhere, and they should always be ignored.
posted by mhoye at 7:54 AM on May 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't get the promotion in this thread for what would essentially be dishonesty-by-omission. Presumably there are people (presumably myself included) for whom polyamory would be a bad option -- if you seek to give a rosier picture of it than is truthful, you are inviting those among us who'd actually believe you to possibly make life choices for themselves that they will later regret and would not have made if they heard the whole story to begin with.
posted by Anything at 8:22 AM on May 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Anything at 8:22 AM on May 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
I will add that I do not like this article because tit-for-tat is a strategy which accounts for the possibility that someone might be acting in bad faith or might be acting in good faith but simply failed to uphold their end of the bargain. It is a strategy designed to help you avoid being a chump, avoid cutting your nose off to spite your face and avoid being caught up in a feud in a situation where you do not know people well and do not trust them but need something they have to offer.
That description should not really apply to something termed "polyamory" (unless you are just trying to put a nice face on a fucking around arrangement that has nothing to do with several people actually caring about each other). I think when you use the term "polyamory" you need to assume all parties are trying to act in good faith and genuinely care about/take care of each other. That doesn't mean there won't be friction. But that does mean that using a strategy which assumes lack of trust, lack of communication, etc. is a bad place to start and at odds with the kind of foundation you should be shooting for.
Again, I understand the goal of the piece and the message it is trying to send about how to not be a chump while practicing tolerance, patience, and forebearance in a complex social setting with typically high emotional stakes, but I think it is starting from the wrong premise. A better place to start is with best practices for communicating, building real trust, and balancing the needs and interests of multiple parties.
posted by Michele in California at 10:55 AM on May 21, 2013
That description should not really apply to something termed "polyamory" (unless you are just trying to put a nice face on a fucking around arrangement that has nothing to do with several people actually caring about each other). I think when you use the term "polyamory" you need to assume all parties are trying to act in good faith and genuinely care about/take care of each other. That doesn't mean there won't be friction. But that does mean that using a strategy which assumes lack of trust, lack of communication, etc. is a bad place to start and at odds with the kind of foundation you should be shooting for.
Again, I understand the goal of the piece and the message it is trying to send about how to not be a chump while practicing tolerance, patience, and forebearance in a complex social setting with typically high emotional stakes, but I think it is starting from the wrong premise. A better place to start is with best practices for communicating, building real trust, and balancing the needs and interests of multiple parties.
posted by Michele in California at 10:55 AM on May 21, 2013
Michele in California: iterated prisoner's dilemma, which the linked article is talking about, does involve communication (albeit in a restricted manner): the "game" is played many times over, and you know how the other person acted in all of the previous iterations. That's the giant difference between a one-off prisoner's dilemma (where, depending on the values given for different outcomes, a player very well may have an optimal strategy of defecting/noncooperating, but which doesn't really model any real world conflict situations) versus the iterated prisoner's dilemma (which is still a very simplified model of conflict, but at least not completely and entirely unrealistic in all cases).
I find that for people who have been raised on a sort-of Libertarian ethos based on making one-off prisoner's dilemma analogies for how to interact with other people, discussing the iterated prisoner's dilemma with them, and the fact that Tit for Tat is about the most successful strategy in tournaments (actually, if I recall correctly, a forgiving Tit for Tat that randomly didn't retaliate against noncooperation in the previous round tended to do even better than pure Tit for Tat), can be a useful educational tool.
posted by eviemath at 1:13 PM on May 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
I find that for people who have been raised on a sort-of Libertarian ethos based on making one-off prisoner's dilemma analogies for how to interact with other people, discussing the iterated prisoner's dilemma with them, and the fact that Tit for Tat is about the most successful strategy in tournaments (actually, if I recall correctly, a forgiving Tit for Tat that randomly didn't retaliate against noncooperation in the previous round tended to do even better than pure Tit for Tat), can be a useful educational tool.
posted by eviemath at 1:13 PM on May 21, 2013 [4 favorites]
I will admit to having fairly limited experience with those who are serious about polyamory, but I don't see how it is incompatible with a libertarian attitude.
Please explain. Gently. ;)
posted by MoTLD at 11:10 PM on May 24, 2013
Please explain. Gently. ;)
posted by MoTLD at 11:10 PM on May 24, 2013
hippybear, in general I agree with your sentiments, but I believe you are being unrealistic about practical polyamory and unfair to those with a (small-l) libertarian mindset.
Your ideals for what polyamory should be are noble and appropriate, but polyamorous folks are no more likely to live up to ideals than libertarian folks or anyone else. In fact, I would argue that the existence of a few self-proclaimed polyamorists who are really just putting a pretty face on screwing around demonstrates that.
In defense of (non-political) libertarianness, the ideal is not "I will do whatever I want," it's "you can do whatever you want and I won't try to stop you unless it harms me." Anyone who uses libertarianism as an excuse for selfishness is just selfish, just like anyone using polyamory as an excuse to have an affair is just having an affair.
posted by MoTLD at 6:20 PM on May 26, 2013
Your ideals for what polyamory should be are noble and appropriate, but polyamorous folks are no more likely to live up to ideals than libertarian folks or anyone else. In fact, I would argue that the existence of a few self-proclaimed polyamorists who are really just putting a pretty face on screwing around demonstrates that.
In defense of (non-political) libertarianness, the ideal is not "I will do whatever I want," it's "you can do whatever you want and I won't try to stop you unless it harms me." Anyone who uses libertarianism as an excuse for selfishness is just selfish, just like anyone using polyamory as an excuse to have an affair is just having an affair.
posted by MoTLD at 6:20 PM on May 26, 2013
I would even go so far as to say that polyamorists and libertarians suffer unfair marginalization for the same reason.
Both philosophies are claimed by poseurs looking to excuse their selfish, hurtful acts, and those who live by the ideals of each have a hard time correcting the resulting undeserved reputation.
posted by MoTLD at 7:36 PM on May 26, 2013
Both philosophies are claimed by poseurs looking to excuse their selfish, hurtful acts, and those who live by the ideals of each have a hard time correcting the resulting undeserved reputation.
posted by MoTLD at 7:36 PM on May 26, 2013
Those who strive to live by the ideals of each, that is. I'm not perfect either...
posted by MoTLD at 7:50 PM on May 26, 2013
posted by MoTLD at 7:50 PM on May 26, 2013
Hey, me again. I am not suggesting people have to live up to extreme ideals to legitimately call their choice "polyamory." All I am suggesting is that this article is intended to provide a logical framework for approaching the practice and it kind of sucks at it in a "fucking to preserve virginity" kind of way. People will make mistakes. But if you want a framework for how to love more than one person, trying to decide how much and how often to retaliate truly sucks as a place to start.
If you want to talk about boundaries, protecting your interests in a complex situation and so on, great! I would be happy to chat. But detailing in advance how much defection, betrayal, revenge and so on you should seek out to keep score has no place at all in any loving relationship of any kind, whether pair-bonding, parent-child, polyamory or whatever. If that's what you call love, hey, count me out entirely for all eternity. I can do better.
Peace, out.
posted by Michele in California at 8:03 PM on May 26, 2013
If you want to talk about boundaries, protecting your interests in a complex situation and so on, great! I would be happy to chat. But detailing in advance how much defection, betrayal, revenge and so on you should seek out to keep score has no place at all in any loving relationship of any kind, whether pair-bonding, parent-child, polyamory or whatever. If that's what you call love, hey, count me out entirely for all eternity. I can do better.
Peace, out.
posted by Michele in California at 8:03 PM on May 26, 2013
Well, not to argue with you, Michele, but I kinda see it from the opposite perspective. I think people have a natural tendency to be defensive in a potentially competitive situation, maybe especially men, maybe not, and this article seems to be presenting an argument for why one should resist that innate defensiveness. It appeals to those of us who try to reason out inherently emotional situations, which approach those who are naturally empathic might find rather, well, backwards.
For some of us, it strikes a chord; for others, a dissonance. It's just pop music^H^H^H^H^Hpsychology, whatever that's worth.
posted by MoTLD at 3:42 PM on May 27, 2013
For some of us, it strikes a chord; for others, a dissonance. It's just pop music^H^H^H^H^Hpsychology, whatever that's worth.
posted by MoTLD at 3:42 PM on May 27, 2013
On the contrary, I spend quite a lot of time thinking about emotional situations.
I hope your experience gets better than the picture you have painted here. My experience was a lot more positive than the impression I am getting of your experience. I met men who wanted to hear about my other experiences, who were not jealous or insecure or possessive. It was a huge shock for me. I had not previously known anything like it. And some of it was amazing and wonderful and freeing.
Take care. Sorry if I have been unhelpful to you.
posted by Michele in California at 7:09 PM on May 27, 2013
I hope your experience gets better than the picture you have painted here. My experience was a lot more positive than the impression I am getting of your experience. I met men who wanted to hear about my other experiences, who were not jealous or insecure or possessive. It was a huge shock for me. I had not previously known anything like it. And some of it was amazing and wonderful and freeing.
Take care. Sorry if I have been unhelpful to you.
posted by Michele in California at 7:09 PM on May 27, 2013
hippybear, it certainly isn't supposed to be a competitive situation, but any time two partners share a third, I believe that's a recipe for competition, depending of course on the personalities involved. Not saying it's inevitable, just that the ingredients are there. As you've been stressing, and I agree, this means all involved must work hard to make it a cooperative situation instead.
Michele, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was saying that empathic people don't have to think about emotional situations. I just meant that empathic people think about them in a very different way from non-empathic (rational? logical? can't think of a good descriptor) people. I'm going out on a limb in assuming you fit the description of an empathic sort. I don't, and I think our different perspectives caused quite a bit of misunderstanding throughout this thread. I'm impressed we all kept it civil. :)
In any case, you have nothing to apologize for, and you've actually been very helpful. It's good to know that my limited personal experience isn't necessarily typical. Hopefully quite the opposite!
posted by MoTLD at 11:19 PM on May 27, 2013
Michele, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was saying that empathic people don't have to think about emotional situations. I just meant that empathic people think about them in a very different way from non-empathic (rational? logical? can't think of a good descriptor) people. I'm going out on a limb in assuming you fit the description of an empathic sort. I don't, and I think our different perspectives caused quite a bit of misunderstanding throughout this thread. I'm impressed we all kept it civil. :)
In any case, you have nothing to apologize for, and you've actually been very helpful. It's good to know that my limited personal experience isn't necessarily typical. Hopefully quite the opposite!
posted by MoTLD at 11:19 PM on May 27, 2013
I am well aware that I have done nothing wrong and I do not "owe" you an apology. I put substantial work into my comments here, far more than I normally would for an internet discussion. The only way it would have not remained civil is if someone were simply hellbent on being an asshole about it.
Love is a skill you can learn. It isn't just a feeling.
In short, I kept my eye on winning you over rather than winning the argument. I apparently met my goal. You can choose to learn something from that or you can do what the vast majority of people do to me and essentially chalk it up to "luck" (which is kind of what you are doing by calling me empathic and claiming you have to work more at it).
Take care.
posted by Michele in California at 10:55 AM on May 28, 2013
Love is a skill you can learn. It isn't just a feeling.
In short, I kept my eye on winning you over rather than winning the argument. I apparently met my goal. You can choose to learn something from that or you can do what the vast majority of people do to me and essentially chalk it up to "luck" (which is kind of what you are doing by calling me empathic and claiming you have to work more at it).
Take care.
posted by Michele in California at 10:55 AM on May 28, 2013
Michele, anyone who chalks your level of discourse up to "luck" is not worthy of reading it.
But please re-read my last comment. Nowhere did I mean to even so much as imply that being empathic is somehow easier than not being so. If I did give that impression, it is I who should be apologizing.
posted by MoTLD at 8:49 PM on May 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
But please re-read my last comment. Nowhere did I mean to even so much as imply that being empathic is somehow easier than not being so. If I did give that impression, it is I who should be apologizing.
posted by MoTLD at 8:49 PM on May 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
those of us who try to reason out inherently emotional situations
I think this is where the misunderstanding began, so let me clarify.
I was born with a severe lazy eye which was not corrected surgically until I was a teen, as well as considerably worse myopia in one eye than the other, so I never developed stereoscopic vision. Like everyone, I can still judge distance based on parallax, shading, and other visual cues, so I get by. But sometimes I have to consciously think about those things in a way someone with stereoscopic vision from birth would never have to do, even though they of course use those cues in addition to natural depth perception.
Some of us, similarly, did not develop the social skills necessary at a very young age to naturally pick up on emotional cues. I fall into this category as well. So, like you, I have to go by body language, tone of voice and emphasis, etc. But for me, that's all I have to go on, so sometimes I have to consciously think about those things in a way you probably can't even imagine. Just like, if you have normal vision, you can't imagine having to think about depth.
It doesn't mean one of us is better or has it easier. I find there are some unusual advantages to being able to use my eyes independently, which y'all normal folks just wouldn't understand. Likewise, I find that having to consciously think about emotion makes me more introspective. But it also makes me socially awkward.
Or at least it did, before I developed some of that skill you mentioned. :)
posted by MoTLD at 9:15 PM on May 28, 2013
I think this is where the misunderstanding began, so let me clarify.
I was born with a severe lazy eye which was not corrected surgically until I was a teen, as well as considerably worse myopia in one eye than the other, so I never developed stereoscopic vision. Like everyone, I can still judge distance based on parallax, shading, and other visual cues, so I get by. But sometimes I have to consciously think about those things in a way someone with stereoscopic vision from birth would never have to do, even though they of course use those cues in addition to natural depth perception.
Some of us, similarly, did not develop the social skills necessary at a very young age to naturally pick up on emotional cues. I fall into this category as well. So, like you, I have to go by body language, tone of voice and emphasis, etc. But for me, that's all I have to go on, so sometimes I have to consciously think about those things in a way you probably can't even imagine. Just like, if you have normal vision, you can't imagine having to think about depth.
It doesn't mean one of us is better or has it easier. I find there are some unusual advantages to being able to use my eyes independently, which y'all normal folks just wouldn't understand. Likewise, I find that having to consciously think about emotion makes me more introspective. But it also makes me socially awkward.
Or at least it did, before I developed some of that skill you mentioned. :)
posted by MoTLD at 9:15 PM on May 28, 2013
I was all content to favorite your comment to acknowledge it and, in the interest of peace, just let this discussion die. But then you decided to 'splain some more. :-/ So, uh, my turn.
I have two autistic sons. I have spent about 2.5 decades explaining social stuff to them and studying all the ways this stuff can go wrong. I know way more about how people can miss social cues, etc, than most people ever will.
Regardless of what wiring you were born with, you will hit it off better with some folks than others and doing right by other people works regardless of whether you had to logic it out or feel your way. Both methods have good points and bad points. Emotion is a type of memory. People who are more emotional are more able to make snap decisions but they are also more prone to doing something based on baggage and assumption.
Being hypersensitive to the feelings of others can also be a kind of information overload or static. Reading people too well frequently gets me in social hot water. It is rude to know something about someone that they thought was well hidden. Etc.
I hoped to demonstrate something to you by example of how I dealt with you. I do not much care what you think about me. I do not care if you think this article is right and I am an idiot. I do care that you got burned and are still hurting enough to come out guns blazing in this discussion, arguing from that place of pain. That relationship situation is still part of your life. I hoped to equip you to cope with it more effectively. It was a long shot, what with the conveyance being a public discussion, but sometimes long shots pay off.
The point of my last reply to you was not to express hurt feelings. It was to say "If you are surprised it remained civil, let me clue you: That was no accident. It took work and skill, something you can learn if you care to."
(The length of this comment should also not be interpreted as ranty or a mark of strong feeling. "I would have written a shorter letter if I had more time." Or, more accurately, if I had more sleep and less sunburn.)
Take care. No hard feelings on my part. Really.
posted by Michele in California at 9:46 PM on May 28, 2013
I have two autistic sons. I have spent about 2.5 decades explaining social stuff to them and studying all the ways this stuff can go wrong. I know way more about how people can miss social cues, etc, than most people ever will.
Regardless of what wiring you were born with, you will hit it off better with some folks than others and doing right by other people works regardless of whether you had to logic it out or feel your way. Both methods have good points and bad points. Emotion is a type of memory. People who are more emotional are more able to make snap decisions but they are also more prone to doing something based on baggage and assumption.
Being hypersensitive to the feelings of others can also be a kind of information overload or static. Reading people too well frequently gets me in social hot water. It is rude to know something about someone that they thought was well hidden. Etc.
I hoped to demonstrate something to you by example of how I dealt with you. I do not much care what you think about me. I do not care if you think this article is right and I am an idiot. I do care that you got burned and are still hurting enough to come out guns blazing in this discussion, arguing from that place of pain. That relationship situation is still part of your life. I hoped to equip you to cope with it more effectively. It was a long shot, what with the conveyance being a public discussion, but sometimes long shots pay off.
The point of my last reply to you was not to express hurt feelings. It was to say "If you are surprised it remained civil, let me clue you: That was no accident. It took work and skill, something you can learn if you care to."
(The length of this comment should also not be interpreted as ranty or a mark of strong feeling. "I would have written a shorter letter if I had more time." Or, more accurately, if I had more sleep and less sunburn.)
Take care. No hard feelings on my part. Really.
posted by Michele in California at 9:46 PM on May 28, 2013
I will take a few of these points to MeMail, if you don't mind, but insofar as some of it applies to the article, let me respond a bit...
I do not care if you think this article is right and I am an idiot.
Can't the article be right for me and wrong for you without either of us being an idiot?
posted by MoTLD at 9:59 PM on May 28, 2013
I do not care if you think this article is right and I am an idiot.
Can't the article be right for me and wrong for you without either of us being an idiot?
posted by MoTLD at 9:59 PM on May 28, 2013
Memail is fine.
I tend to care little what people think of me and I wasn't trying to prove you "wrong." That was my only point. If it sounds like something else, let me reiterate: sunburned, tired, yadda.
So if it's okay with you, I will try to pass on this opportunity to dig a deeper hole by arguing it.
Thanks.
posted by Michele in California at 10:07 PM on May 28, 2013
I tend to care little what people think of me and I wasn't trying to prove you "wrong." That was my only point. If it sounds like something else, let me reiterate: sunburned, tired, yadda.
So if it's okay with you, I will try to pass on this opportunity to dig a deeper hole by arguing it.
Thanks.
posted by Michele in California at 10:07 PM on May 28, 2013
« Older Not in Kansas Anymore | Back To The Mountain Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:42 PM on May 20, 2013 [5 favorites]