Sam Spade Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 I just had an important insight (like I often do on Thursday afternoons ), which is that the Turing's logic for establishing machine intelligence applies 100% to relationships. (for those who don't remember, the turing test is a hypothetical scenario of human engaging a machine in a natural conversation; if the human cannot discern that he's talking to a machine based on the actual conversation, then it is said that the machine has passed the test of being "intelligent"). So, the same logic can usefully be extended to relationships. Specifically, I am increasingly beginning to belief that as long as people outwardly do all the right things in relationships, it doesn't matter that much what kind of wiring/circuitry has produced those actions. As a simplified example, if my wife kises me goodbye in the morning and enthusiastically greets me in the evening, for all intents and purposes, the relationship passes the test. It doesn't really matter what is the underlying process that produced htis behavior. While of course one would hope it is genuine feelings, the flipside is what good are genuine feelings if not manifested by little external things? Since you can't ever tell what your partner is really thinking, that's really of secondary importance relative to how they behave outwardly - regardless of motivation. Even in extreme examples - e.g. my wife not giving a shet about my problems but merely putting on a mask of caring about them - it would still be a positive experience. And this is certainly not that far fetched. All of us to some extent do things they rather not do to make others happy. So, who cares what's the motivation as long as those htings do get done? So, the point being that going through the right motions may be way more important for relationships than the alternative school of thought suggesting reliance predominantly on feelings and letting everything else "work itself out".
Isolde Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 I disagree with such a simplistic view. Here's an example, when you call your parents because you think you should and because when you actually want to, you come off totally differently in each case. Yes, to some extent people act and some are pretty darn good actors, but there is NO substitute for feeling. What you're saying is ONLY true if the relationship is based on love to begin with. If the feelings lapse a bit during hard times and a couple makes an effort to keep up the actions of caring, that's one thing. If there was never feeling in the first place and it's all a farce, believe me, that will show.
Author Sam Spade Posted September 3, 2009 Author Posted September 3, 2009 I disagree with such a simplistic view. Here's an example, when you call your parents because you think you should and because when you actually want to, you come off totally differently in each case. Yes, to some extent people act and some are pretty darn good actors, but there is NO substitute for feeling. What you're saying is ONLY true if the relationship is based on love to begin with. If the feelings lapse a bit during hard times and a couple makes an effort to keep up the actions of caring, that's one thing. If there was never feeling in the first place and it's all a farce, believe me, that will show. Well, I'm not saying that there should be no feeling, just that it's not quite as relevant. Basically the comparison is not a relationship w no feeling vs one with, but rather alternative measures for assessing quality of relationships, assuming some sort of feeling. I think i'd rather be with a girl who's ho-hum about me but does allll the right things than with a girl that is madly in olve wiht me but never makes breakfast . Back to the parents example, I think of my mom quite often, but almost never call her, just because I'm too lazy. So, why would she care that I haven't really forgotten about her, if i cal levery other month? Conversely, she's always happy even when I grudgingly find the time to call (and I don't think it shows).
samspade Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 I can see what you are saying, SS, but behind every action is a motivation - and it won't always be the one you want. You reminded me of a time when I was sexing a girl who had a boyfriend. Her boyfriend called her on the phone, and she picked up and talked to him. Better than ignoring the call, right? Well, my hand was inside her the entire time. But hey - she was doing her due diligence as a girlfriend, so what did it matter? I often say "actions speak louder than words," but a key component is that actions be genuine. Yes, we all have "selfish" base motivations - sexual satisfaction, emotional needs, providence for potential offspring, etc. Let's assume those are built in to our overall "feelings" toward our mates. A woman who does all the right things - kisses you goodbye, maintains contact, asks permission on certain decisions, lets you be the man, etc. - does so because you still make her vagina tingle. A woman with ulterior motives, or one attempting a charade, simply cannot match the genuine intensity of a woman who is majorly invested in her relationship. People can be great at charades, but often they succeed because their mates let them. They fool themselves into thinking "everything's okay." Look around on the cheating forums, and you'll see anyone with an issue will write "she told me she loves me, and I believe her," or "he just bought me a ring, so..." I'm willing to bet that the bf of the girl I mentioned had his own suspicions, even though everything in the relationship was functioning from a superficial standpoint. Perhaps humans have a sixth sense, but deep down, we know when someone is being disingenuous. Too often our egos won't listen to our subconscious.
Author Sam Spade Posted September 3, 2009 Author Posted September 3, 2009 Oh no, my theory is beginning to crumble already , or at least needs major qualifications. That's probably because I'm so naive - I'm really having a hard time imagining that people could actually go through the trouble to keep up a deceptive act. If they are so far gone, why bother instead of simply leaving??? While the survival/needs based selfishness is fine in my book (e.g. if i want her to be happy to drop panties, better say something sweet ), obviously I wouldn't be able to go through the motions (at least not convincingly) for someone who i actually resent/disrespect.
silverfish Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 I don't know about your theory but Alan Turing's name just came up on the news here (coincidence?). I found it strange after reading your posts to learn about his personal life and death - did you have this in mind when you asked the question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing ''So, the point being that going through the right motions may be way more important for relationships than the alternative school of thought suggesting reliance predominantly on feelings and letting everything else "work itself out". Turing was homosexual, living in an era when homosexuality was considered a mental illness and homosexual acts were illegal. Subsequent to his being outed, he was criminally prosecuted in 1952, which essentially ended his career. He died not long after from what was officially declared self-induced cyanide poisoning Do you think his sexuality and the conflict within him helped lead him to his discoveries? I must admit I'd not heard of him til today so keep those thursday moments coming!
Recommended Posts