You must log in or register to comment.
The biggest thing for me is that she’s eroding his emotional sovereignty. She’s taking covert actions to modulate and decide his mood for him.
Sometimes, when I’m feeling down, I just want to feel that and get through on my own. But she’s deciding which of his moods isn’t appropriate and is changing his behaviour. If this were out in the open, he would be able to accept or refuse her attempts to cheer him up or divert him. But he (presumably) doesn’t even know it’s happening. That’s not cool.
It sounds fine because it’s worded like she’s helping him but she’s still taking away his autonomy. Just bring it out in the open: “hey, I’ve noticed, when you’re sad or stressed, peanut M&Ms cheer you up. Would you like me to keep some on-hand?” With that you, you’ve alerted them to behaviours about themself and got their consent to “help” them.
If that’s the timbre of their interactions, I’ve got no qualms. But setting the context as “I train abused dogs” brings the mental image to one step above “hiding medicine in a dog treat.”
I appreciate your comment.
I’ve actually talked to my fiance about things like this, because I noticed that I was ‘handling’ him, and I felt like it was demeaning to him. Luckily for me, he considered what I said and informed me that he likes that.
Consent makes the difference!
Probably helps that I’m used to disturbed and abused humans, too…
Yeah, that’s perfect! You asked and he said okay. You treated him like an adult and an equal and are now actively helping him, instead of deciding for him how he should grow/change.
When logic doesn’t work, appeal to the lizard brain … often. We’re kinda not that complex.
I totally respect this, but worry egoes (his) will get in the way during a lull in the snacks.
Friend is jealous of dogboy
You know if the dude’s friends pick up on this they’ll start calling him dog boy.
Woof
I’m gonna run away from home and start barking at people.
Maybe I’ll get lucky, either way I’ll be taken care of.
Me, reading title: “WTF?!? That’s messed up!”
Me, after reading the post: “I’m so fucking jealous.”
I also want M&M rewards.
Yeah I think that’s pretty gross. This person stated that the person they are dating is emotionally unavailable and has potentially been abused as a child. But because they find them pretty, they decided to manipulate a person like they manipulate animals for selfish purposes. (Both are bad!) Their partner probably needs therapy not to be emotionally manipulated by their partner.
I am asking this more out of curiosity than criticism, but how would you deal with someone who is emotionally unavailable, shows signs of childhood abuse, but treats you pretty fairly?
Honesty?
Not like a dog?
Be there for them and try to convince them to get professional therapy, maybe? And not Jedi mindtrick them using food out of whatever mood you don’t like that they’re in.
Have a M&M
I’m vegan
No sex or kinkiness needed. Just take me home, animals are treated better than humans ;_;
Animals deserve it more
It’s not a zero-sum.
Hey if it works out works. She is an asshole for not using proper grammar and punctuation though.
Some people take great offense when you don’t pretend humans have somehow evolved beyond the animal kingdom. Yes, we are still animals, and much of what works for them still works on us.
People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.
The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.
It’s also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, “oh shit, (s)he caught on!” will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.
A: “Ok, what’s with the M&Ms?”
B: “You’ve noticed then. :)”
A: “…”
B: “I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better.”
A: “… You’ve been conditioning me?!?”
B: “Yes, don’t you like the improvement?”
A “… yes, but I’m not sure I should…”
B: “M&M?”
Just squirt him with the water bottle if he starts asking questions like this.
Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.
It’s quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.
Okay, this is just turning into the episode of TBBT where Sheldon is conditioning Penny and sprays Leonard with water and the whole gang looks up the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
You could also be even more cautious: “I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you’re feeling down.” No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.
We constantly condition each other all the time. It’s a part of human interaction. We don’t usually do it consciously, but it’s conditioning nonetheless. Couples will subtly condition their behavior to be more in tune with each other.
Consider a simple example. Imagine a you’re in a couple, and you just moved in together. You’re both used to living alone. You’re used to flicking on the bedroom light as you walk into the bedroom before bed to prepare for bed. Unfortunately your partner tends to go to sleep before you. You wake them up a few times by accident, and they understandably grumble. You feel bad about it, as you care about them and don’t want to wake them up. You wince the next day when you see how tired they seem. In time, you stop flicking the light on before you enter the room. Your partner’s actions have conditioned you to not turn the light on. Your partner conditioned you without even intending to. We condition each other constantly. We observe what effect our behavior has on others, and we adjust our own behavior accordingly. We usually just don’t refer to it as “conditioning,” as that tends to have a nefarious connotation.
All true, but it isn’t always best to lead with that. It can provoke an emotional response that might not be productive.
It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.
By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.
Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various “ah ha!” reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it’s a lot easier to communicate properly.
I’m very much a “direct communication” kinda person but even I know that timing is important. True it took learning it and that was certainly an experience but it happened.
If the person is feeling vulnerable and a little worried you’re manipulating them and you dive straight in with a scientific, emotionless reduction of “choco make boyo happy” then you’ll probably scare them. You’re excited about this thing and have had a lot of time to explore it but they haven’t had such time to be more comfortable with that kind of wording. You don’t want to derail their argument, that really only protects you and actually puts you back in hiding a negative aspect and that person now feels possibly even more confused and angry. They were probably hoping that it was just a mistake or that you were being nice, which you probably were, and now you’ve taken their “best case scenario” and told them straight-faced that you were consciously manipulating them.
After they feel better, after they’ve had some time to sit with it, sure maybe, but in the moment it’s good to soften it a little.
That feels very Abed
Especially the end line
She seems to have only the best intentions, but I can’t help but feel a little creeped out. She’s using a psychological trick to leverage this man’s trauma in order to get him to behave in a certain way, and she’s doing it without his knowledge or consent. I think that’s dishonest at the very least, and I don’t think building the foundation of your relationship on calculated manipulation is going to lead to a good outcome.
I’d even go as far as saying her emotional intelligence creates a power imbalance in the relationship, which she is deliberately exploiting.
I agree that what she does is manipulative and condescending even with the best intentions (paving the road to hell and all that), but I have issues with the use of “emotional intelligence” here.
An emotional intelligent person does NOT do this kind of shit on purpose.
They meet the other person where they’re at and on the same level, they communicate honestly, they don’t presume to educate or manage them.I’d say she comes off more as emotionally stunted, she has no idea know how to relate with her partner as an equal.
Eh, I see it as a way to overcome trauma. In therapy don’t they give you “tools” to use to achieve the same? Unknown that’s the individual doing it themselves and not a third party doing it. But I don’t see it as overly wrong.
At least until the individual overcomes the trauma, although I suppose they themselves should be able to acknowledge that they have overcome it.
So I don’t know. What I do know is if someone felt that strongly, directly towards my mental health, it would be amazing.
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
Here Lemmy, have a peanut butter M&M
It’s odd, sweet, I think. She’s doing her best in the way she knows best
Has hammer, sees only nails.
This is just poorly thought out. You offer dessert and to pay, yhen classify out as food motivation. I mean it could be that he’s happy you’re paying, or happy you want to be out longer. If anything he just ate, so food motivation would be at it’s lowest.
You’re taking an animal that isn’t as complex as humans or even have a concept of society, and trying to apply that to a person in a relationship. I think the thought is there, but the conclusions are a bit flawed.
M&M?
I mean it could be that he’s happy you’re paying, or happy you want to be out longer.
Oh, have you seen video of their lunch or something? You should post it, we can figure this out right now.
That’s my point. We don’t know. She made a wild assumption based on terms used to train dogs.
We don’t know. Through grand powers of deduction, I assume she was in the room when it happened.
We’re only more complex in that we have language systems so can assess situations in a more detailed way. The majority of the time we have pretty much the same instincts and responses to stimuli to many other animals because, in short, it takes less energy/effort. Being able to conceive society, something canines can do, doesn’t stop other natural instincts. There is a level of simplification, yes, but this is a social media post, not a scientific study so it won’t explain every minute detail!
We’re only more complex in that we have language systems so can assess situations in a more detailed way.
In part yes. But we also have a society. We have concepts of social norms that we created and evolved. We have expectations developed through a lifetime of education and media. A human from 50 years ago would feel lost in today’s world, let alone a dog. We may be driven by some same basics, but we are more complex.
My point is that we can’t talk to dogs like we can to humans. So we learn signs and try to interpret them as best we can. But interpretations are just that - interpretations. They can be wrong. A better method would be to talk and discuss the issue, removing the need for any guesswork.
