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’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.”
The way she contextualises it is a bit odd, but the actual thing isn’t that bad. It’s just accommodating him, being aware of his particulars, and helping him over his issues. The gift of a single M&M is unusual, but giving your partner something nice isn’t strange. People do similar things all the time in relationships, it’s just not thought of as training.
Biggest issue is her framing it that way, because people might either get the wrong idea, or give the wrong idea. Saying she’s training him like a dog gives the idea of a lead, like with an actual dog.
A man can only dream of having a girl who’s so attentive and understanding. She’d make a good mom.
Most of us are so utterly self-consumed.
Yeah. Positive reinforcement works across a lot of species… Just because the OP is used to using it with canines first doesn’t make it bad to use on humans We could all use a little pick-up sometimes, just doing fine the M&M’s to rover and a milk bone to the partner by mistake.
i remember this episode of Big Bang Theory
And How I Met your Mother
I mean this simply gets into the ethics of manipulation. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing happiness.
That’s all fine, it’s when she gets naked on the bed with a jar of peanut butter and a spatula that things start getting weird
a spatula that stings
Why is she hitting you with the spatula?
Seriously. Should be a newspaper.
Don’t yuck the yum
Honestly if we treated each other as well as we treated dogs we’d already be in paradise.
😬
Some dogs.
My main issue with this is that the way we train dogs is that we train them to be dependant on us. So yeah, she’s training him to come out of his shell, maybe, but if it works the same way a dog does he’ll only be loyal and listen to her. Especially because anyone else he meets won’t treat him like a dog and will expect him to behave like a person without the expectation of rewards which would probably make him more adverse to others
Of course, he’s a human being too so it won’t go down exactly like that. I’m just saying that from the very first premise the way we train dogs is by training them to be codependant
Well okay but what do you want her to do then, not treat people like she treats dogs?
if you want a different class just get more girlfriends
Well, once he opens up she can train him to be more independent. But first he needs the security and wiggle room.
Its not the best approach, but in the mental world you take what you can get.
That’s kind of my point. What part of our whole understanding of how to train dogs involves training them to be more independent? I don’t really think there is any. At best you can point to like dog socialization training, but I don’t think that makes them more independent, that’s just training them to be social when their owners are around.
This is literally how I want to be treated.
somehow I could tell even before you said it
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.
Insert “it should’ve been me” meme here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That feels very Abed
Especially the end line
It’s odd, sweet, I think. She’s doing her best in the way she knows best
Has hammer, sees only nails.
-Listens to what he means when he is speaking -Pays attention to his nonverbal cues about his emotional state -Respects his boundaries and only assists him in expanding them, not demanding he do so -Rewards him for engaging in new healthy behaviours that he finds uncomfortable
Fellas, is it being an asshole for checks notes engaging with your partner?
Yeah, this person isn’t disrespectfully treating a human as they would a dog, they’re just respectfully treating dogs as they would a human.
We can’t get a dog’s consent to engage in experiments. Continuing with this method after realizing and not talking with him about it would be intentionally ignoring consent.
It’s not an experiment to react to someone’s fear and trauma with kindness, even if you learned those skills through helping rehabilitate dogs. She’s not doing this to try to figure out how he reacts to the stimulus of M&Ms under certain conditions, she’s giving him candy when he’s stressed because she knows it helps him calm down. That’s just being a caring and attentive girlfriend.
Being caring also involves including their consent in the process. Idk, I’d be really upset by my partner knowingly doing this without talking to me about it. But then again I guess it could depend how they react if I found out before they just admit to it. Like if they got defensive and didn’t understand why I’m upset. I’m not saying the whole thing is horrible, just hiding it.
Also depends on the person and their values, I guess. If you value someone doing that kind of emotional labor for you without you having to think about it. I’m very much used to doing the emotional labor in relationships.
Damn. I just realized maybe I’m displacing here though cuz I’m a bit jealous they’re using a method that works, whereas I’m single for a plethora of reasons.
I think the concern would be generating a Pavlovian response to her presence instead of genuine desire to be with her, but I don’t even know what that really means because our animal brains aren’t rational. There isn’t a such thing as “genuine” in this context because it’s all based on emotions. Should you not have sex with your partner because it can make them feel attached, for example?
Sure, positive associations can be fabricated but it’s not as simple as the pavlovian response observed in dogs.
I don’t think they’re all that different tbh
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
