Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise has an interesting opinion about the recent dogtraining for men thingie in the New York Times. here’s the post:
Amy Sutherland used animal training techniques to break her husband of irritating habits. I say, good for her. She could have gotten the same advice from a behaviorally-oriented psychotherapist: praise good behavior, reward closer approximations of desired behavior, ignore bad behavior, never punish, and provide positive alternatives that are incompatible with the behavior you’re trying to discourage.
Sutherland’s husband got into a pattern of losing his keys and throwing tantrums. She learned to ignore this behavior. She realized that she had been reinforcing her husband’s helplessness and his emotional outbursts by paying attention to his tantrums, even when the attention took the form of telling him not to freak out about his keys.
Some people think it’s degrading or manipulative to use operant conditioning on other people. I disagree. A pattern of ineffective nagging is far more degrading for all concerned. If a nagging pattern develops, that’s evidence that rational persuasion has been tried and failed. Nagging takes hold when the nagee realizes that the nagger is right, but won’t change.
Of course the trouble is that Beyerstein is reacting to people’s reaction to the idea, “oh you’e saying we should treat men like dogs? Well I never, how dare you sir!”, and she’s a busy woman so there’s no reason she would have actually thought out the reason why applying Operant Conditioning to a relationship actually creeps so many people out once you get past that first, gut level, reaction.
Most of the people reacting to this are women who’ve had the technique used on them, La Marcotte broke up with her last b/f because of it in fact.
Because despite Beyerstein’s claim that psychotherapists would suggest the technique, they wouldn’t because this technique is generally more often called “passive agressive manipulation” in normal society. A psychotherepist who suggests this remarkably stalinist technique in marriage councelling sessions is a quack.
It is really not something a person wants to start using as standard in their relationship if they want their relationship to stay healthy, and while it may seem like a “Healthy” technique to use if you accept Bernstein’s basic dichotomy that leaves nagging and operant conditioning as the only options available to the stepford husband wanting wife, the only trouble with that is that it is jsut so much unquestioned assumption and raw bullshit. As in fact becomes apparent if you actually look at why this technique is used on dolphins and dogs, because it’s used for the singular reason that you cannot have a conversation, arguement or discussion with a dolphin or dog, they are things that cannot be convinced into choosing to behave or work through their issues, they are nono-senitent, it is in fact this rather large and telling distinction between humans and dolphins that makes beastiality immoral, the animal cannot consent, it may not object, but that is not the same thing as giving consent, and resorting to sneaky little manipulative games rather than hashing out your troubles with your pair bonded life partner like actual grown ups are supposed to do, is both insulting to your husband, who you are choosing to treat like a child who has to be coerced into not pissing you off all the time, and a really good way to fuck up your relationship. You’re choosing coercion over mutual understanding and good communication, if that doesn’t make alarm bells start ringing in your head, it’s only because your internal self-harming bullshit meter is broken.
And then there’s the whole “manipulative bitch” patriarchal stereotype she’s supporting and affirming (the idea that women have to resort to cheap tricks like this is also patriarchal btw, after all, women don’t do direct confrontation), which, because of women’s Othered nature in society, means that thanks to Amy Sutherland’s inability to be a grown up about this shit and actually confront her husband on his behavior effectively, we all get tarred with the brush of being “naturally” manipulative. The mere thought of all the Patriarchal Rights Activists who I just know are going to be citing her over and over again to prove how all women are evil manipulative bitches, gives me freaking headache
And let’s not stop examining where the patriarchy comes into this whole thing there.
For starters, there’s the whole “Man = Non-sentient Animal” assumption that you have to swallow to accept this bullshit as the only alternative to nagging, only if men are these big babies who need to be protected from reality and your true feelings, and who cannot express their feelings properly and therefore cry out of frustration and for attention, does this whole thing make sense. Women are people just as much as men are, is the feminist creed really, that’s what the “too” in “women are people too” refers to, so instead of asking “what do men want” (after asking yourself “what do I want” first, of course), ask the guy in question what he wants, it cuts through a whole lot of pointless and antagonizing crap when all is said and done.
Then there’s the way that this reinforces the patriarchy and rape culture’s eternal assertion that relationships are inherently supposed to involve these stupid freaking hierarchal power games, where one person has to get the upper hand on their strangely attractive adversary or else they open themselves to be dominated by said adversary.
No.
Relationships are Mutual things, between at least two Consenting Adults, when you have a problem you hash it out or you fight or you discuss or you tell him to fuck off when he starts to irritating you in the kitchen, because that’s what adults who love each other DO, communication is key and if you can’t communicate with your SO, then you need to examine what is wrong with your relationship, because passive agressive manipulation is the ultimate resort of insecure cowards who’s relationships suck.
We know this because it’s how “Nice Guys™” deal with women, and there don’t come people more cowardly with their insecurities dealing with women than “Nice Guys™”, and most women have had the wonderful chance to examine what it’s like to have someone playing head games with them, because into every woman’s life a little “Nice Guy™” spooge tends to fall, if only out of a momentary lapse of common sense and an all too easily manipulated sense of pity. This sort of shitty manipulative crap sucks.
And then lets look at how there’s this assumption that you need to change him or he you, who the hell did you marry? He’s not a fixer-upper, if you’re marrying him for any reason than simply because you love him, warts and all, and he you, then why did you marry? No, you don’t need to marry, no you don’t need to fear being an “inferior” woman because you find yourself at 80, unmarried and making up stories to explain you busting your hip during a bean flicking session, without suicide or a nasty accident, it’s not like both members of a married couple are going to die in their lover’s arms, not without necrophilia being involved at any rate.
Life ain’t always fair, and you can either kill yourself worrying, or you can simply put one foot in front of the other and keep on doing what the hell you would do if you weren’t worrying about trying to bag the 1.5 husbands and 2.4 children in time before the timer runs out and the game ends. You don’t get points at the end of it for being the best at adearing to a bullshit socially acceptable lifestyle, or if there is, it’s a sandwhich board with the words “I’m a fucking idiot who squandered the gift of life I was given” that you’ll have to wear at all public engagements.
If actual discussion doesn’t work, well have you considered a divorce? because if you can’t convince him to stop his behavior with arguement and adult discussions, then your relationship is broked, and you either better fix it (which will require you being able to get him to give enough of a fuck about your feelings that he’ll stop pissing you off even though you’ve told him time and again stop doing something that irritates you) or call an end to it before it gets ugly, because if you just accept the idea that men are supposed to be insensitive attention-whores with no self control or willingness to take your needs in to consideration because they love you, then it can get really really ugly, and they probably don’t love you all that much really. And so what if it’s hard? Don’t be a baby, suck it up and do what needs doing, whatever that means…
Fight the problem not the symptoms, because the problem will always have more symptoms to whip out, and that’s why you can rest assured that it’ll get ugly before it gets better, until you are forced to deal with the core problem one way or the other.
Some may go as far to say that you love people BECAUSE of some of their flaws, rather than in spite of, them. It means a level of openness, and people are more interesting with quirks.
I have relationships with humans, not objects, not divine beings.
R., you misspelled Lindsay’s last name. It’s Beyerstein.
Operant conditioning isn’t a special strategy for use by women on men. Anyone can do it. In fact, we all do it to each other to a certain extent without even realizing what we’re doing. Good teachers and managers are usually good operant conditioners. There’s no rule that says you can’t use words and even arguments to condition people’s behavior. In fact, that’s normally how it’s done with people. Praising someone for doing what you want can be both operant conditioning and healthy communication. How is it manipulative to say,
“Thank you for doing X, I really appreciate your help”?
Sure, your goal is to encourage the person to help more often, but it’s hardly manipulative. You’re letting them know that you do in fact value their contributions. Unless your mate is a complete psychopath, he or she will enjoy your expressions of thanks and the evidence that s/he’s making you happy. This is a reinforcer.
The fact that someone you care about appreciates your help is also a good reason to help more often, given that you want to make that person happy. It’s rational to be more inclined to help people who are appreciative.
I understand why operant conditioning creeps people out, but I think they’re wrong. To the extent that the author describes her methods, they don’t sound manipulative or passive aggressive at all. For example, her husband wants to hang out in the kitchen while she cooks, but she doesn’t want to be distracted. So, she takes the initiative to structure the environment so that they both get what they want. The same with the key argument. He wanted someone to look after his keys and serve as an audience for his tantrums. She stopped playing along, but she didn’t do it passive aggressively. Passive aggression is about punishing and blaming. She refused to blame him or retaliate against him. She changed her own responses instead of bemoaning his shortcomings. That’s the antithesis of passive aggression.
You said it. This got me fired up too. I consider these strategies depraved. And the congratulation she received, knew she’d receive by the approving public, stinks of our times and it turns my stomach.
I honestly think people are responding more to her cutesy-poo tone. The funny thing is she actually derailed behaviors that *are* passive aggressive. At least Where’s My Keys is, at least when you want an audience for your temper tantrums, like Lindsay said.
I dunno. If your attempts to just get along with someone always end up pissing them off instead of helping you get along, it makes sense to try to find strategies that work better.
I don’t know why people stay in relationships that don’t work, but if you can make them work just by changing the tone, I see an alternative to calling the divorce lawyer that may at least be worth trying.
I can understand being pissed off at someone who seems to be trying to discourage you from being who you are and encouraging you to be who you aren’t (I once lived with a guy who only greeted me with a hug when he came home if I was washing the dishes – ick), but that’s not always what it is.
You don’t have to be someone who has tantrums and behaves counterproductively – and a lot of parental or partner behavior actually encourages counterproductive behavior, so you might as well stop and say, “I gotta change my tapes.” If changing your tapes means you ignore the behavior that annoys you and respond to the behavior you like, well, that’s actually just being sensible – and really more natural.
It’s what you really do with most things, isn’t it? I don’t like watching football, so I ignore it and read a book instead; it doesn’t have to be a fight. I like watching Buffy, so if someone is watching it I will join them; it doesn’t have to be a big deal. It’s a straightforward expression of, and reaction to, what I like and don’t like that makes no particular demands on anyone.
You don’t have to be ignoring what you don’t like “for the relationship” – just ignore it because you don’t like it, the way you would ordinarily do with anything else. The trick here is to realize that by actively trying to do things that are unnatural to you in order to alter someone else’s behavior, you’re just making things worse.
Yeah, it’s not the same as Having a Discussion, but it’s still perfectly honest communication.
I do like the “Jackboots of Love” category. I’m going to have to find a way to use that.
My wife has those. She can show you how to use them.
Oh, wait. You meant something different, right?
I remember having to play find & replace on another post just before I posted it because I’d called you Bernstein all the way through *sweatdrops*, it’s not an intentional thing I swear.
Good teachers and managers are usually good operant conditioners.
Managers maybe, Pavlov is the patron saint of HR departments the world over, but good teachers merely lubricate the student’s path along the learning curve of the subject, a bad teacher is the one who doesn’t teach the student to the level of being able to teach themselves, but instead spends all their time creating a co-dependent relationship between the student and the teacher that leaves the student unable to work without the teacher there coaching them.
If you extend the metaphor to relationships the bad teacher will end up with what Sutherland has, this system where her husband has to be constantly trained and retrained forever to stop pissing her off, where as if she was a good teacher she’d be training him to be self correcting, because like the good student he should want to not piss her off and to take her feelings into account before he indulges in assholey little hissy fits. He’s a sentient being, he should be expected to act like it.
Sure, the ultimate goal is teaching the student to teach themselves.
What I get from the idea of “good teachers use operant conditioning” has more to do with maintaining order in the classroom than any larger questions of teaching methodology and philosophy. It has to do with teaching students the proper behavior for being in your classroom and it begins the moment you walk through the door for the first class meeting.
In my experience, a quick look of disapproval for disruptive/unwanted behavior followed by continuing the lesson without missing a beat can work wonders. When disruptive students are an issue and we have had a good class, I praise the entire class and reward them, if possible.
Of course, I learned this all the hard way.
(BTW, I love your post because it captures a lot of the queasy feelings I’ve had following this discussion from blog to blog.)
There are books out that push amateur behavioral conditioning as a good thing; viz, “Don’t Shoot The Dog!”
the last person I knew who was a great enthusiast of this book turned out to be a charming, manipulative sociopath who badly abused one of my friends.
make of it what you will.
Behavioral conditioning was something I had to practice with my kids quite often. But then kids need such reinforcements of positive behavior and guidance away from negative behavior. We do that because we understand children and even adolescents haven’t yet developed the ability often to discern the difference between what feels good now and what must be done for future benefit. As parents we have a responsibility to teach our children out of impulsiveness so they become responsible adults. Alas, so many parents fail miserably and bring up impulsive adults who must find over compensating partners with which to live.
Anyway, I lived through a marriage much like what is described. If I wanted to know what he did with the rent money I got the cold shoulder treatment. If I pretended that everything was fine even though his fantasy business plan would put us in the poor house again, I got lotsa love and attention. If I met what I knew was his girlfriend and acted nice without saying a word, I got a happy husband and didn’t have to hear his threats about dumping me and the kids. Sure worked well for eight years. And when I left him, he had no problem finding a new partner to support his behavior.
I agree, it is passive aggressive to some extent. This ’solution’ also smacks of the old stereotype of the woman as the ‘fixer’ and mature one and the man as the child who must be reigned in. High maintenance men are great for distracting the woman from caring for herself.
Which leads me to my conclusion that what the writer proposes is a form of co-dependence, which still has quite a following among people. No surprise that her ’suggestions’ are popular.
[...] Musing upon the mighty wisdom of Lindsay Beyerstein and Le Marcotte, I think I have figured out the problem everyone’s having. [...]