Hobes, the signals we send out are often too subtle even for us to understand and catch in ourselves.
The above article references the original coining of the term "principle of least interest" in 1937 by Waller in "The rating and dating complex" from the American Sociological Review.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have little comment on Tom's point #1, despite the fact that I am pretty sure it is true.
Although I find people of all sorts who are happy and healthy and fulfilled to be attractive, I make it a point to actively encourage those fulfilling relationships in my friends. That is, I think happily committed guys are great and neat and cool, and if they are my friends, I try to keep them that way.
Unfortunately, I suspect this is not always the case, so I can see why he makes the point.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow that was an interesting article. I couldn't help trying to figure out where my own relationship would be according to the questions asked. I wish they'd used a larger data sample that was more equitable in gender since they had only 20% male respondents.
Do you know of any article which discusses how strongly the Principle of Least interest applies in long-term or married relationships?
posted
When does the principle of least interest stop being necessary? In other words, do you always, always have to not care completely?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the principle of least interest is ever necessary. That is, acting disinterested in order to increase your power is not necessary. If you do decide to become more emotionally involved, though, you run the risk of losing an edge in the relationshop, powerwise. I'm not a big fan of judging relationships in terms or power, myself.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When does the principle of least interest stop being necessary? In other words, do you always, always have to not care completely?
*grin
A good chunk of my last post on the prior page addressed this. To recap, in my view:
quote:All relationships start out this way. In intimate relationships (romantic or close friends), this stage of mutual demonstration of power and attractiveness is followed by a stage of sharing vulnerability. You show your softer side, admit failures or fears, ask for help. This is a bonding time. But if it comes before the first part (the demonstration of power, and even power in the sense of being excited and interested in the other parts of the world, other than the person in front of you), then you freak people out.
Or you attract people who are primarily attracted to weakness, like predators.
So there is the display of pretty plumage, which is as far as most everyday relationships go. Then there is the confession of vulnerability and bonding at the appropriate time for intimate relationships. And for the strongest long-term intimate relationships, some mix of shared power (mutual strength, mutual vulnerability, ebb and flow of shared and balanced interest) has to come, too.
quote: "She (Madame Bovary) had that indefinable beauty that comes from happiness, enthusiasm, success - a beauty that is nothing more or less than a harmony of temperament and circumstances." --Gustave Flaubert
quote:That is, acting disinterested in order to increase your power is not necessary.
"least interest" does not equal "disinterested"
It can just mean you are interested in something else more. For example, a person may be in a position of least interest when he is more interested in making friends of all backgrounds and sexes than he is in getting that one particular chick at this particular ski resort vacation. Not disinterested in her, just that getting her is not his primary interest for the trip.
So if she is looking for someone, she is more invested in their possible relationship than he is.
Amazing any of us ever get together.
I don't think "acting disinterested" usually works, though -- the cues are too subtle to fake. You have to be more interested in something else for it to have that effect, for the most part. So, for Boris Tom's offer at the bottom of page 1 is like gold.
quote:If you do decide to become more emotionally involved, though, you run the risk of losing an edge in the relationshop, powerwise.
See my post at the bottom of page 1 or the summary in the above post.
quote:I'm not a big fan of judging relationships in terms or power, myself.
I agree to disagree, then. I think anytime there is a relationship, there is some flow of power.
Doesn't make it bad -- power itself isn't evil. It is just a descriptor of dynamics. And any relationship has dynamics.
[ November 10, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
And it isn't a certainty, only a theory. I think it works, though.
Some landmarks are ritualized displays of both plumage and vulnerability. And yes, we feel closer after, no? But when some new person comes in and just lays out a huge achy miserable mess, people react differently, no? It is a different context.
People are confusing. But it's okay.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the theory - it makes sense, it fits in with my experiences, and it offers some hope. I like it. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I started thinking about my own relationship in terms of power. My first reaction was to say we were totally equal. And the net balance of power between Steve and I probably is. But when you actually look at most of the easily visible and quantitative things, the article Sara posted above would probably say that I'm in the position of power, I think. (And then you get into the interesting thing of are we actually equal but because of the cultural bias discussed of relationships with higher power from the male in a relationship generally being more stable do I feel like I'm more powerful than I actually am.)
The things that I have power over, are probably more traditionally male roles. The checkbook and finances for example. He asks me if we can afford something, I don't ask him. He uses it against me though.
Because I am a certifiable cheapskate. If we are in the store and I'm drooling over something like a sweater, he'll go, can we afford it? And most of the time the answer is "yes". Then he's the one that actually makes me buy it. He knows that with me drooling I'll go back 20 times and continue to drool and never buy it. My father is the exact same way as I am, and it is a bit of de ja vu, when I hear Steve echoing my mother's words and sentiments.
Our division of social life is pretty equal. A funny example is that, we know a group of people that go to a particular pub every Thursday night. For a while, Steve and I never showed up on the same night. You'd only see one of us, because the other person was too tired and worn out from work or had other stuff going on. When we both ended up there on the same night it was pretty amusing.
With our home life, though Steve has the "power" balance distinctly in his favor. He's the one that cooks and does the mowing etc. I'll do laundry and put an occasional load of dishes in the dishwasher, but the place isn't actually clean unless he decides it should be, because he's far more effective at cleaning and decluttering than I am.
So like I said I think it does balance out, but a lot of our roles are reversed from the norm. I've seen this in several other technical-technical person relationships too.
posted
Dave and I go through times of equilibruium, and then we go through times when one of us needs to be taken care of. When that happens, the power shifts.
One of the ways we deal with it is for the one who is needed to do more than help, or even take charge for awhile, but also to be careful to talk about those times of neediness from the other in the past. Times when things went the other way. Or, to talk about needy elements of the helper still now: "I know I am taking care of you, but I still need you to do this for me. You help me so much. And I can't do it without help, either -- I lean on my friends and on you, too."
We keep it pretty balanced, and we talk a lot, and we've learned each other's language, both verbal and non-verbal.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
