I mean this simply gets into the ethics of manipulation. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing happiness.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
660 points (98.4% liked)
Curated Tumblr
4923 readers
974 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
The best transcribed post each week will be pinned and receive a random bitmap of a trophy superimposed with the author's username and a personalized message. Here are some OCR tools to assist you in your endeavors:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/m_f@discuss.online: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
i remember this episode of Big Bang Theory
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.
That's all fine, it's when she gets naked on the bed with a jar of peanut butter and a spatula that things start getting weird
a spatula that stings
Why is she hitting you with the spatula?
Don't yuck the yum
Honestly if we treated each other as well as we treated dogs we'd already be in paradise.
😬
Some dogs.
My main issue with this is that the way we train dogs is that we train them to be dependant on us. So yeah, she's training him to come out of his shell, maybe, but if it works the same way a dog does he'll only be loyal and listen to her. Especially because anyone else he meets won't treat him like a dog and will expect him to behave like a person without the expectation of rewards which would probably make him more adverse to others
Of course, he's a human being too so it won't go down exactly like that. I'm just saying that from the very first premise the way we train dogs is by training them to be codependant
Well okay but what do you want her to do then, not treat people like she treats dogs?
if you want a different class just get more girlfriends
Well, once he opens up she can train him to be more independent. But first he needs the security and wiggle room.
Its not the best approach, but in the mental world you take what you can get.
That's kind of my point. What part of our whole understanding of how to train dogs involves training them to be more independent? I don't really think there is any. At best you can point to like dog socialization training, but I don't think that makes them more independent, that's just training them to be social when their owners are around.
This is literally how I want to be treated.
somehow I could tell even before you said it
Insert "it should've been me" meme here.
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.
People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.
The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.
It's also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, "oh shit, (s)he caught on!" will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.
A: "Ok, what's with the M&Ms?"
B: "You've noticed then. :)"
A: "..."
B: "I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better."
A: "... You've been conditioning me?!?"
B: "Yes, don't you like the improvement?"
A "... yes, but I'm not sure I should..."
B: "M&M?"
Just squirt him with the water bottle if he starts asking questions like this.
Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.
It's quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.
You could also be even more cautious: "I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you're feeling down." No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.
It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.
By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.
Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various "ah ha!" reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it's a lot easier to communicate properly.
We constantly condition each other all the time. It's a part of human interaction. We don't usually do it consciously, but it's conditioning nonetheless. Couples will subtly condition their behavior to be more in tune with each other.
Consider a simple example. Imagine a you're in a couple, and you just moved in together. You're both used to living alone. You're used to flicking on the bedroom light as you walk into the bedroom before bed to prepare for bed. Unfortunately your partner tends to go to sleep before you. You wake them up a few times by accident, and they understandably grumble. You feel bad about it, as you care about them and don't want to wake them up. You wince the next day when you see how tired they seem. In time, you stop flicking the light on before you enter the room. Your partner's actions have conditioned you to not turn the light on. Your partner conditioned you without even intending to. We condition each other constantly. We observe what effect our behavior has on others, and we adjust our own behavior accordingly. We usually just don't refer to it as "conditioning," as that tends to have a nefarious connotation.
All true, but it isn't always best to lead with that. It can provoke an emotional response that might not be productive.
It's odd, sweet, I think. She's doing her best in the way she knows best
Has hammer, sees only nails.
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
-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.
I think the concern would be generating a Pavlovian response to her presence instead of genuine desire to be with her, but I don't even know what that really means because our animal brains aren't rational. There isn't a such thing as "genuine" in this context because it's all based on emotions. Should you not have sex with your partner because it can make them feel attached, for example?
Sure, positive associations can be fabricated but it's not as simple as the pavlovian response observed in dogs.
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.
I mean it could be that he's happy you're paying, or happy you want to be out longer.
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'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!
load more comments
(1 replies)
M&M?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someone who always has a snack for me if I'm feeling down?? Sign me the fuck up!
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›