You must log in or # to comment.
This is literally how I want to be treated.
I mean this simply gets into the ethics of manipulation. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing happiness.
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”.
Hey if it works out works. She is an asshole for not using proper grammar and punctuation though.
Some people take great offense when you don’t pretend humans have somehow evolved beyond the animal kingdom. Yes, we are still animals, and much of what works for them still works on us.
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
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.
I mean, it doesn’t say that she forces him to eat it from her hand or anything.
Insert “it should’ve been me” meme here.
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?
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.
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
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.
It’s odd, sweet, I think. She’s doing her best in the way she knows best
Honestly if we treated each other as well as we treated dogs we’d already be in paradise.
How close would that be to slavery?
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.
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.
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
Don’t threaten me with a good time…
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.
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.
