-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?
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.
That's fair. If you're used to not receiving emotional attention, then suddenly receiving it might be something so novel that you need to give it your blessing before accepting it. The relationships I've been in have generally defaulted for both parties to a sense of "I'm going to do what I think is best for you, so let me know if I'm ever wrong," rather than "Can I do this thing for you? Ok, good. How about this one?" But I've been lucky to have mutually caring relationships.
If this person has gotten used to people not having their best interests in mind, then maybe even their partner's good intentions need to be given consent just to show them that people can have good intentions. I do worry that, by being told what's happening, he'd associate candy with being stressed and get defensive whenever offered candy, but hopefully she's been doing it long enough to at least show him that it's an effective de-stressor coming from a place of love rather than manipulation.
I hope you find someone who cares for you as well. It took me a lot of time and effort to put myself out there before I found my wife, but I'm really glad I did.
Even in your description of an "emotionally attentive" relationship, they have to be aware of what you're doing for them or else how will then tell you that you're wrong? Can it only ever be wrong if the person being acted for detects it, regardless of whether they dislike it?
Hypothetical: "You've been wanting to get stronger, so I've been secretly feeding you HGH. It's what you've wanted so I was doing what I thought best to help you."
All relationships require consent. Trying to reframe "getting consent and confirmation about your partner's wants and boundaries" as some sort of "anxious pestering" or needling is incredibly strange to me. As you get to know them, you don't have to check as often as you come to understand them but they should still be aware of what you're doing.
And do you realize what you're doing here is placing yourself as the standard to debate down at other positions, while presenting your anecdotes as relationship defaults?
It's funny, your hypothetical made me realize that OP's example specifically does involve consent. Your example removed the inherent consent of the situation by making the HGH dosage a secret thing they're doing behind their partner's back.
When my wife has a hard day I'll bake her a batch of her favorite cookies because I know they'll help cheer her up. I don't need to ask consent for that because it's just a thing I'm doing on my own. She always has the option not to eat them when I offer her some if she doesn't want to, and on the rare occasion she turns me down, she knows I'll just bring them to work to share with the office. That's a normal relationship - seeing when your partner needs something from you, and offering it to them - that offering is the point where consent is asked.
Yeah, if I secretly ground up cookies and mixed them into her cereal in the morning in an attempt to force her to eat them, that would be bad. The consent comes at the offering, not at the loving act of choosing to offer it in the first place. This guy is giving consent when he takes the candy, and denying it when he chooses not to take it, just like my wife is giving consent when she takes the cookies, or denying it when she refuses them, which is always a known option.
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?
Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren't bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they're only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They're still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
I brought a six pack to a final exam in grad school (take the test in the same state in which you study, right?) and people around me perked up and almost literally started drooling when I cracked the first one.
Edit: no, we engineering students don't have drinking problems, you have a drinking problem!
Is it really the 'good boy' part, or just the validation? Because I could say the same thing about 'good boy,' AND about every other compliment doled out to me once every few months.
The only vaguely concerning bit I see here is the penultimate sentence. Evading consent is sketchy, but I'm not a behavioral psychologist and thus have no working knowledge on how that would impact his "treatment".
I think that's what stuck for me. Manipulation takes many forms, not all look evil. She should take these observations and talk to him about it, instead of using them as tools to treat his feelings.
"Hello, I would like to give you peanuts sometimes when you're sad. Do you accept these terms?"
What is he consenting to that he's not already aware of?
Speaking of pavlovian conditioning, the reason I don't like casinos, loot boxes in video games, gacha mechanics, etc., is not that I think those people haven't consented to their money being taken from them. I just don't think those are good institutions. Or practices. Whichever word applies. They take more than they give, and I don't think that's fair.
You're grossly misrepresenting what this is. She got desserts and noted him as food motivated. That's insulting. He only got happy because there was food for him to eat, really? No discussion of why he was sad before, just get him snacks and move on? Maybe talk to him and ask why he seemed upset before desert instead of just giving him a snack and hoping it's better.
The woman here is trying to change his mood or behavior through dog training techniques instead of figuring out why he feels or acts a certain way. Is he aware that she is literally treating him like a dog? It comes across as her caring about his behavior in the moment more than his overall mental health.
Fair, but if I'm upset because I might lose my job or my mom is sick then that doesn't address any of those.
So, 1, this doesn't answer my question about what it is he hasn't consented to.
Ok let's answer that. Did she say "I'm going to treat you like a dog" and him agree? Did she say, "I'm giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it" I doubt it and she never mentioned it. She simply does this as a manipulation technique without ever discussing "hey, I think we need to talk about you being comfortable being vulnerable."
2, how is it you know she's not interested in his life story?
Well she had the chance to say she actually talked about and addressed the problems upsetting him, but she never mentioned that at all. Just dog training strategies she uses on him without him being aware.
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."
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.
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.
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.
We’re all animals, whether or not we want to believe that is simply a fact. And on top of that we are stressed the fuck out which pushes people, to vary degrees, back towards monkey brain. I consider myself pretty self-aware and therapy has proven that but oh man did my last job do a lot to leave me defensive and short with even the people I care about.
There’s that phrase “you can’t logic someone out of an argument they didn’t logic themselves into” that very well encapsulates the idea that trying to force some higher intelligence, some emotionless, robotic reasoning onto people does very little to actually help(though it should help more than it does and I’m disappointed in people running on pure, angry emotion all the same).
We need to stop acting like we aren’t the way that we are, it just hurts us. I’m not saying we need to excuse bad behaviour because, unlike wild animals, we have a great capacity to know better and adjust, but we do need to be more ok with the reality of ourselves.
To add to this, you can do this to yourself as well. Reward yourself for the right behavior, tell yourself your did a good job, etc. It's (I'm guessing) harder than extrinsic motivation, but it still works. Take advantage of having a stupid lizard brain under all the stuff that makes us human.
We very likely conditioned ourselves to hate ourselves, and it so clearly works, so absolutely we can use those same tools to teach ourselves to be kinder as well.
I spent a whole year writing a journal and that basically put it in writing that things weren’t quite as bad as I had thought. Even without doing it now my mind will go to better places automatically because I built up that reaction and understanding.
I feel like this was ultimately the point of the love yourself movement. I don't know how you could convince yourself to love yourself without conditioning yourself to do it, too.
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."
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.
Most of the time, you can't tell the persons intentions from that position. I hope for the guy's sake the woman is genuine about helping him. Though her method is fucked.
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.
IDK as a guy this doesn't seem weird at all. If anything, it sounds like she likes him and is willing to put in work to make him feel more comfortable and make the relationship successful. She doesn't really use any dehumanizing language and the way she connects the dots between what she notices in dogs and her date seems very empathetic. If anything, the guy's lucky to have found someone with so much emotional intelligence and hopefully she's getting out what she's putting in
Do people think I don't know I'm joking? It's one of life's hidden mysteries to me, like the Fermi paradox or what the Reese's panties are there for, or why I like it so much. Why don't more candies dress up for the occasion?
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.
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.
Yeah, the single m&m is a little weird but how is it really different than seeing someone in a bag mood and telling them a joke or something to lift their spirits?
Pretty sure it's the lack of consent of the intent that is undignified. Just like many woman prefer to not have their date pay for their meal because it sets the implication that they have to pay via other ways and they didn't consent to this.
Consent to what? What is he supposed to be consenting to? That she thinks thoughts in her head? M&M's are not actually magic, he does not have to be any happier if he doesn't want to.
Like, let's look at another act of subtle coercion: the advertising industry. An ad agency's entire job is to either directly or indirectly prime and condition you into believing certain things about whatever it is they're selling.
Maybe they want you to believe it's a good product. Maybe they want you to believe that Apple is "clean" and "cool" and "for creatives." Maybe they want you to believe that protesters are crazed lunatics throwing firebombs and flipping cars all the time.
And, while this is deliberate manipulation, I've never heard anybody talk about how they didn't consent to it. If a salesman is trying to coerce you into something, your consent is the contract you sign.
And likewise, I don't see how this guy isn't consenting to M&M's making him happier when they either did or did not do that in the first place.
The lady has training with animals and is applying what she learnt to make a guy at ease with her...
I'd say the friend is the asshole here. You do the best you can with what you got.
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
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.
Yeah but this guy doesn't currently need independence, he needs safety. Independence isn't gonna give it to him - if anything, it's making him feel exposed and unsafe.
It's like kids, they need to be cared for while they learn how to handle themselves. Slowly, you let them go and eventually they spread their wings and fly off. But until then, they're vulnerable, weak, and highly dependent. Doesn't make them any less, they just have other priorities.
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.
That's just basic psychology more or less. These are just the thoughts you shouldn't say ouloud perhaps. You can often compare things because there's similarities, but the nature of the things being compared may make it offensive.
It's more like "training dogs has given me an understanding of basic psychology which came really handy in my relationships" than "I'm training my bf like a dog".
The NYT had an article from 2006 which described a very similar "training". It goes into greater detail. Here is an archived version without paywall: https://archive.ph/n4GPa
This is just poorly thought out. You offer dessert and to pay, then classify it 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 its lowest.
You're taking an animal that isn't as complex as humans or even has 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.
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.
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?
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.
Many people apparently loving this, I see it as a red flag. She's manipulative and I'd second guess every action she'd take from the day I noticed it
Edit: funny that people are down voting this, I guess they want to be manipulated by their partners.
Take it from someone who divorced a manipulative partner, it's not cool them all the time lying pushing and manipulating you to be the way they want you to be.
I personally struggle to see the difference between regular social interaction and manipulation. Do you have a sense on where that lies for you?
For example, due to being autistic, I struggle with making eye contact, but I recognise that most neurotypical people find that important for feeling connected to their conversation partner, so I often try to make eye contact during conversation. If I see someone has styled their hair in a way that shows they've put a lot of effort into it, I will often compliment them, even if I only feel neutral about it. I baked a cake for a friend when she finished her exams, because I know that physical gestures like this mean a lot to her (especially if it's a surprise); I wanted to make her happy, but it wasn't purely altruistic — ultimately, making the cake was an indirect way of making myself happier.
Another example is how, when speaking to someone struggling with something, my instinct is to go into problem solving mode and try to help. However, I've learned that some people much prefer space to be sad, and so saying things like "that sounds so frustrating" or "I can see why you're so angry, it's an unfair situation" lands better. It always feels weird and manipulative to do this, because the things I say feel so trite and meaningless. But it seems to really help, and I've had to just embrace the fact that people use different things to cope than I do. It does feel weird though, and if these aren't examples of bad manipulation, then I don't know where that line would be
This reads like you didn't even read the post, and you're projecting your negative experience with your ex onto it for some reason. Yeah, abuse isn't cool, but that's not what this is.
-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.
That's fair. If you're used to not receiving emotional attention, then suddenly receiving it might be something so novel that you need to give it your blessing before accepting it. The relationships I've been in have generally defaulted for both parties to a sense of "I'm going to do what I think is best for you, so let me know if I'm ever wrong," rather than "Can I do this thing for you? Ok, good. How about this one?" But I've been lucky to have mutually caring relationships.
If this person has gotten used to people not having their best interests in mind, then maybe even their partner's good intentions need to be given consent just to show them that people can have good intentions. I do worry that, by being told what's happening, he'd associate candy with being stressed and get defensive whenever offered candy, but hopefully she's been doing it long enough to at least show him that it's an effective de-stressor coming from a place of love rather than manipulation.
I hope you find someone who cares for you as well. It took me a lot of time and effort to put myself out there before I found my wife, but I'm really glad I did.
Even in your description of an "emotionally attentive" relationship, they have to be aware of what you're doing for them or else how will then tell you that you're wrong? Can it only ever be wrong if the person being acted for detects it, regardless of whether they dislike it?
Hypothetical: "You've been wanting to get stronger, so I've been secretly feeding you HGH. It's what you've wanted so I was doing what I thought best to help you."
All relationships require consent. Trying to reframe "getting consent and confirmation about your partner's wants and boundaries" as some sort of "anxious pestering" or needling is incredibly strange to me. As you get to know them, you don't have to check as often as you come to understand them but they should still be aware of what you're doing.
And do you realize what you're doing here is placing yourself as the standard to debate down at other positions, while presenting your anecdotes as relationship defaults?
It's funny, your hypothetical made me realize that OP's example specifically does involve consent. Your example removed the inherent consent of the situation by making the HGH dosage a secret thing they're doing behind their partner's back.
When my wife has a hard day I'll bake her a batch of her favorite cookies because I know they'll help cheer her up. I don't need to ask consent for that because it's just a thing I'm doing on my own. She always has the option not to eat them when I offer her some if she doesn't want to, and on the rare occasion she turns me down, she knows I'll just bring them to work to share with the office. That's a normal relationship - seeing when your partner needs something from you, and offering it to them - that offering is the point where consent is asked.
Yeah, if I secretly ground up cookies and mixed them into her cereal in the morning in an attempt to force her to eat them, that would be bad. The consent comes at the offering, not at the loving act of choosing to offer it in the first place. This guy is giving consent when he takes the candy, and denying it when he chooses not to take it, just like my wife is giving consent when she takes the cookies, or denying it when she refuses them, which is always a known option.
What is the "this" you'd be upset about exactly?
Knowingly conditioning me without my understanding.
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?
Just hit it from the back so they don't get attached
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
If THAT is what counts as "being treated like a dog", woof woof!
🦴
Someone who always has a snack for me if I'm feeling down?? Sign me the fuck up!
I was like 'I need a caretaker/trainer'
My fat ass (food motivated btw) immediately thought of the snacks but someone who can make me quit my bullshit is even better!
Me, reading title: "WTF?!? That's messed up!"
Me, after reading the post: "I'm so fucking jealous."
I also want M&M rewards.
Intent matters, and methods matter. But I think what the friend is missing is that the methods aren't bad; op is using methods developed from scientific analysis of abused animals with the intent to ethically care for them. Coming back to intent, she clearly wants to help this guy who her training is identifying as having some kind of background of abuse. The methods might be a little crude in the sense that they were developed for animals and not for people (who are animals, but animals with several distinct qualities from other animals, like the ability to communicate complex ideas), and there are different, more well-adapted methods for people, but they're only crude in comparison to those modern human-focused methods. They're still quite effective, and I would still consider them ethical for use on humans when paired with an altruistic intent, which she seems to be conveying. As long as she still views the guy as fully a person, a peer, then I see nothing wrong here.
pretty much agree, it's not like she's conditioning him to sounds CLICK-CLICK good boy....
Though there's probably a significant amount of people on lemmy who would be into actually that.
You can absolutely condition me into doing whatever you want by cracking open a beer next to me
I brought a six pack to a final exam in grad school (take the test in the same state in which you study, right?) and people around me perked up and almost literally started drooling when I cracked the first one.
Edit: no, we engineering students don't have drinking problems, you have a drinking problem!
Beer isn't a problem, it's a complex mixture.
I did accidentaly develop a kink to being called good boy.
Is it really the 'good boy' part, or just the validation? Because I could say the same thing about 'good boy,' AND about every other compliment doled out to me once every few months.
So much of kink is just “I like validation, and having my boundaries respected”.
Me reading about bdsm: "bro aftercare is just being vanilla as heck."
At this point, many contexts will make me feel weird when I'm called a good boy. And specifically good boy.
Thanks, weirdo AI for ruining me.
i don't kinkshame
The only vaguely concerning bit I see here is the penultimate sentence. Evading consent is sketchy, but I'm not a behavioral psychologist and thus have no working knowledge on how that would impact his "treatment".
I think that's what stuck for me. Manipulation takes many forms, not all look evil. She should take these observations and talk to him about it, instead of using them as tools to treat his feelings.
Talk about what, though?
"Hello, I would like to give you peanuts sometimes when you're sad. Do you accept these terms?"
What is he consenting to that he's not already aware of?
Speaking of pavlovian conditioning, the reason I don't like casinos, loot boxes in video games, gacha mechanics, etc., is not that I think those people haven't consented to their money being taken from them. I just don't think those are good institutions. Or practices. Whichever word applies. They take more than they give, and I don't think that's fair.
You're grossly misrepresenting what this is. She got desserts and noted him as food motivated. That's insulting. He only got happy because there was food for him to eat, really? No discussion of why he was sad before, just get him snacks and move on? Maybe talk to him and ask why he seemed upset before desert instead of just giving him a snack and hoping it's better.
The woman here is trying to change his mood or behavior through dog training techniques instead of figuring out why he feels or acts a certain way. Is he aware that she is literally treating him like a dog? It comes across as her caring about his behavior in the moment more than his overall mental health.
I don't know about you, but I love dessert.
So, 1, this doesn't answer my question about what it is he hasn't consented to.
2, how is it you know she's not interested in his life story?
Fair, but if I'm upset because I might lose my job or my mom is sick then that doesn't address any of those.
Ok let's answer that. Did she say "I'm going to treat you like a dog" and him agree? Did she say, "I'm giving you an m&m ever time you open up to encourage it" I doubt it and she never mentioned it. She simply does this as a manipulation technique without ever discussing "hey, I think we need to talk about you being comfortable being vulnerable."
Well she had the chance to say she actually talked about and addressed the problems upsetting him, but she never mentioned that at all. Just dog training strategies she uses on him without him being aware.
And what does this mean, exactly? You get the extra muffin she baked or something? You get to cuddle a lot?
She probably didn't say that, no, but I assume he can see this, like, with his eyes. If he doesn't want m&m's, why take them?
So, she hasn't told you via this tweet, therefore, ergo, concordantly, vice ve, she has never cared or asked about, like, his childhood or his mom.
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?"
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.
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.
That feels very Abed
Especially the end line
We’re all animals, whether or not we want to believe that is simply a fact. And on top of that we are stressed the fuck out which pushes people, to vary degrees, back towards monkey brain. I consider myself pretty self-aware and therapy has proven that but oh man did my last job do a lot to leave me defensive and short with even the people I care about.
There’s that phrase “you can’t logic someone out of an argument they didn’t logic themselves into” that very well encapsulates the idea that trying to force some higher intelligence, some emotionless, robotic reasoning onto people does very little to actually help(though it should help more than it does and I’m disappointed in people running on pure, angry emotion all the same).
We need to stop acting like we aren’t the way that we are, it just hurts us. I’m not saying we need to excuse bad behaviour because, unlike wild animals, we have a great capacity to know better and adjust, but we do need to be more ok with the reality of ourselves.
To add to this, you can do this to yourself as well. Reward yourself for the right behavior, tell yourself your did a good job, etc. It's (I'm guessing) harder than extrinsic motivation, but it still works. Take advantage of having a stupid lizard brain under all the stuff that makes us human.
We very likely conditioned ourselves to hate ourselves, and it so clearly works, so absolutely we can use those same tools to teach ourselves to be kinder as well.
I spent a whole year writing a journal and that basically put it in writing that things weren’t quite as bad as I had thought. Even without doing it now my mind will go to better places automatically because I built up that reaction and understanding.
I feel like this was ultimately the point of the love yourself movement. I don't know how you could convince yourself to love yourself without conditioning yourself to do it, too.
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."
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.
This is probably a me thing, but if I were to catch on to someone doing this I might start wondering at some hidden intent behind everything they do
Next thing you know they're hiding deworming pills in your treats. 😂
Sweet, now I can continue eating rare pork without worrying!
This. ^
Most of the time, you can't tell the persons intentions from that position. I hope for the guy's sake the woman is genuine about helping him. Though her method is fucked.
Even if the intent is good it is still manipulation without consent.
That's true yeah. Yeah the more I think about the situation, the nastier it gets. The training could mess someone up.
I mean, it doesn't say that she forces him to eat it from her hand or anything.
Honestly if we treated each other as well as we treated dogs we'd already be in paradise.
😬
Some dogs.
How close would that be to slavery?
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.
IDK as a guy this doesn't seem weird at all. If anything, it sounds like she likes him and is willing to put in work to make him feel more comfortable and make the relationship successful. She doesn't really use any dehumanizing language and the way she connects the dots between what she notices in dogs and her date seems very empathetic. If anything, the guy's lucky to have found someone with so much emotional intelligence and hopefully she's getting out what she's putting in
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
Why is she hitting you with the spatula?
Don't yuck the yum
Seriously. Should be a newspaper.
Don't threaten me with a good time...
I want this in my life so badly 😮💨
You could just buy peanut m&ms
That's not the same, and you know it
Dear diary,
Do people think I don't know I'm joking? It's one of life's hidden mysteries to me, like the Fermi paradox or what the Reese's panties are there for, or why I like it so much. Why don't more candies dress up for the occasion?
I knew you were joking. What I said is technically true, but it's also a funny response to what you said
Tell me more about Reese's panties...
It's odd, sweet, I think. She's doing her best in the way she knows best
Has hammer, sees only nails.
I lucked out, I have someone to train me with snacks too uwu
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.
Friend is jealous of dogboy
You know if the dude’s friends pick up on this they’ll start calling him dog boy.
Gotta say, this smells a little like a top tier troll post. That out of the way, I also would like someone to carry around peanut M&Ms for me.
Top tier reward
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.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of people react like the treats are indignifying, as if positive and negative reinforcement only happen in a lab or something.
Yeah, the single m&m is a little weird but how is it really different than seeing someone in a bag mood and telling them a joke or something to lift their spirits?
People wouldn't blink twice if you'd brought your partner some chocolate, or lunch because they were having a bad day.
Pretty sure it's the lack of consent of the intent that is undignified. Just like many woman prefer to not have their date pay for their meal because it sets the implication that they have to pay via other ways and they didn't consent to this.
Okay, I asked somebody else, maybe you can help.
Consent to what? What is he supposed to be consenting to? That she thinks thoughts in her head? M&M's are not actually magic, he does not have to be any happier if he doesn't want to.
Like, let's look at another act of subtle coercion: the advertising industry. An ad agency's entire job is to either directly or indirectly prime and condition you into believing certain things about whatever it is they're selling.
Maybe they want you to believe it's a good product. Maybe they want you to believe that Apple is "clean" and "cool" and "for creatives." Maybe they want you to believe that protesters are crazed lunatics throwing firebombs and flipping cars all the time.
And, while this is deliberate manipulation, I've never heard anybody talk about how they didn't consent to it. If a salesman is trying to coerce you into something, your consent is the contract you sign.
And likewise, I don't see how this guy isn't consenting to M&M's making him happier when they either did or did not do that in the first place.
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.
The lady has training with animals and is applying what she learnt to make a guy at ease with her... I'd say the friend is the asshole here. You do the best you can with what you got.
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, 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.
Yeah but this guy doesn't currently need independence, he needs safety. Independence isn't gonna give it to him - if anything, it's making him feel exposed and unsafe.
It's like kids, they need to be cared for while they learn how to handle themselves. Slowly, you let them go and eventually they spread their wings and fly off. But until then, they're vulnerable, weak, and highly dependent. Doesn't make them any less, they just have other priorities.
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
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.
As Iggy Pop said, now I wanna be your dog.
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.
Here Lemmy, have a peanut butter M&M
This is literally how I want to be treated.
somehow I could tell even before you said it
Someone wouldn't like watching House M.D. if this is making them feel immoral.
House Trains His Protégé | House M.D..
(if you don't want to see the whole thing here's s timestamp for the more relevant portion)
That's just basic psychology more or less. These are just the thoughts you shouldn't say ouloud perhaps. You can often compare things because there's similarities, but the nature of the things being compared may make it offensive.
It's more like "training dogs has given me an understanding of basic psychology which came really handy in my relationships" than "I'm training my bf like a dog".
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.
And How I Met your Mother
And Community
I don't remember the HIMYM one. Was that with Ted's "Honey"? Or Robin's "Scooby"?
I was thinking about the Scooby one. Robin literally dates a dog.
Insert "it should've been me" meme here.
Isn’t this just reinforcement, like reinforcement vs punishment from behavioral psychology? It works.
I will throw you like Donkey Kong throws a barrel.
The NYT had an article from 2006 which described a very similar "training". It goes into greater detail. Here is an archived version without paywall: https://archive.ph/n4GPa
The book is good as well
This is just poorly thought out. You offer dessert and to pay, then classify it 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 its lowest.
You're taking an animal that isn't as complex as humans or even has 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?
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!
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.
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.
Yeah, you seem to be trying to make some point, but it's not landing.
I don't see a problem here.
62yo male here thinks she's a damn genius... maybe she should like, make some of those tiktoks or something...
As a 62 year old, you should not encourage awful things...like going on TikTok
true, but how else are all those other women gonna learn her wise ways if she doesn't? american women anyways...
I mean this simply gets into the ethics of manipulation. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing happiness.
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?
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.
Honesty?
Not like a dog?
Have a M&M
I'm vegan
Hey if it works out works. She is an asshole for not using proper grammar and punctuation though.
Many people apparently loving this, I see it as a red flag. She's manipulative and I'd second guess every action she'd take from the day I noticed it
Edit: funny that people are down voting this, I guess they want to be manipulated by their partners.
Take it from someone who divorced a manipulative partner, it's not cool them all the time lying pushing and manipulating you to be the way they want you to be.
I personally struggle to see the difference between regular social interaction and manipulation. Do you have a sense on where that lies for you?
For example, due to being autistic, I struggle with making eye contact, but I recognise that most neurotypical people find that important for feeling connected to their conversation partner, so I often try to make eye contact during conversation. If I see someone has styled their hair in a way that shows they've put a lot of effort into it, I will often compliment them, even if I only feel neutral about it. I baked a cake for a friend when she finished her exams, because I know that physical gestures like this mean a lot to her (especially if it's a surprise); I wanted to make her happy, but it wasn't purely altruistic — ultimately, making the cake was an indirect way of making myself happier.
Another example is how, when speaking to someone struggling with something, my instinct is to go into problem solving mode and try to help. However, I've learned that some people much prefer space to be sad, and so saying things like "that sounds so frustrating" or "I can see why you're so angry, it's an unfair situation" lands better. It always feels weird and manipulative to do this, because the things I say feel so trite and meaningless. But it seems to really help, and I've had to just embrace the fact that people use different things to cope than I do. It does feel weird though, and if these aren't examples of bad manipulation, then I don't know where that line would be
This reads like you didn't even read the post, and you're projecting your negative experience with your ex onto it for some reason. Yeah, abuse isn't cool, but that's not what this is.
I did read the post and yes, I have neen in abusive situations before. There is a reason why its an AITA question and yes, she is the asshole.
Just because apparently loads of people have a slave fetish here doesn't mean that it's not manipulative.
The point is that just because it's manipulative, that doesn't make it abuse.