Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Changing a Romantic Partner

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

[Mod's note: Split from

earlier thread. -sNerd]

If you are to compare them you will get at the same point but in case1 you spent effort (amount depends on the "fault" you were fixing). This alone should make you start thinking about if you want to be with someone you had to fix in order to make them right (or good enough) for you.

...

Consider also that 'fixing" people is a hard business, which will rebound sooner or later, the moment you remove the pressure you have placed in order to fix the person.

This is an interesting subject to me and one that I haven't really explored so I would be interested in hearing others oppinions about it. This might be a new subject(so moderators feel free to move me around if you deem it necessary)

I'm certain that I am not the only guy on this list who has noticed a particular shortage of objectivist gals. I have been fortunate to have known quite a few but usually in circumstances where they were unavailable. So the women I have dated have been what you might consider less then perfect philosophically. Obviously they had traits that I valued but were not a full package, if you know what I mean. Short story, they had to change. Most of the time it was not a concious act of trying to improve them, but it was bound to happen. I gather that you can't argue against an objectivist for very long without conceding or giving up and moving on which is to say that you can't argue with reality for very long without giving up and moving on.

On the one hand, it is of course a value to be challenging to the person you are with. I find that the thing I enjoy most about other people is that trait in particular because they can serve as an impetus for constant improvement. But when it is one sided to the extent it usually is, it seems to imbalance the relationship in a mentor/student kind of way that it usually the precursor to the end of passionate interest.

So I have a few questions concerning this issue.

1) Is it reasonable to date someone who is not what you want exactly while hoping they improve/try to change them or should one honestly kick back for 12 years and wait for dagny, galtstyle?

2) Has anyone else been in this situation(from either side) and do you have any concrete(or abstract) advice as to how to encourage growth and change while not causing the aforementioned imbalance?Or even comments about what not to do? (I have a few ideas of my own but don't want to color the conversation until I hear what others have to say)

3)Why are there so few objectivist women as a percentage? In otherwords, what about the philosophy is so repellent?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a new subject(so moderators feel free to move me around if you deem it necessary)
It is a different subject than the one here, so we need to be moved. How about "Objectivists dating non-Objectivists?"

However, it seems that there are some similar threads already:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=4433&hl=dating

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=6244&hl=dating

See more: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...hlite=%2Bdating

EDIT: something closer to your topic: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=998

Edited by Olex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links, Olex. They were interesting and I read through them, but did not find anything in particular that addressed my question(#2 in particular) Was there a specific spot where it was discussed that I missed?

Thanks again,

Gordon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is, that it depends on what kind of change one is talking about.

If you like the person, let's assume that they are basically pretty rational, but simply accept some existing philosophy, and think it's obvious even though they have not questioned it too deeply. I think that changing such a person's explicit ethical & political ideas is not a huge task -- one pretty much has to lend them a copy of Rand, and then chat about it. (That's my wife :worry: and I from many years ago. )

From other people I know, my guess is that the person's existing political and ethical ideas do not have to be on any particular point in the political spectrum to make for easier change. However, I think it would be tough to convince someone who's practices an epistemological approach that is irrational. [i don't see this as a problem, because I can't imagine myself being attracted to such a person.] Remember though, that explicit political and ethical ideas are not the way to judge a person's epistemological approach.

Other than a person's automatic habits of thinking, another thing that's difficult to change is a person's pychology. So, a match of explicit philosophies with a divergence of psychology can be a harder bridge to cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else been in this situation(from either side) and do you have any concrete(or abstract) advice as to how to encourage growth and change while not causing the aforementioned imbalance?Or even comments about what not to do?
Watch out that being challenging doesn't become being annoying. Know when to give up attempting to evolve your significant other and be happy with the person you already value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3)Why are there so few objectivist women as a percentage? In otherwords, what about the philosophy is so repellent?

What makes you think it's repellent? How many women do you know that are actively interested in abstract ideas--beyond the "shouting slogans" phase? That is an absolute requirement for anyone to ever become an Objectivist. From my experience, doing more than absorbing your ideology is considered a masculine trait. May as well ask why there are so few female engineers, mathematicians, and physicists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think it's repellent? How many women do you know that are actively interested in abstract ideas--beyond the "shouting slogans" phase? That is an absolute requirement for anyone to ever become an Objectivist. From my experience, doing more than absorbing your ideology is considered a masculine trait. May as well ask why there are so few female engineers, mathematicians, and physicists.

That's a good point. Maybe that is the correct question to ask. I have always attributed that to genetically based neurological differences. To be sure, I have known some women, brilliant at math and plenty of men who have great difficulty with concepts as abstract as long division, but the bell curves of ability in that regard are definately skewed. So what do you think? Why is engineering, math and physics repellent to women? Or, what causes the disinterest in ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch out that being challenging doesn't become being annoying. Know when to give up attempting to evolve your significant other and be happy with the person you already value.

Not being annoying is along the lines of what I have attempted to do. No need to beat them over the head with an Atlas Shrugged. But when you are having a conversation and they say something like, "The government should provide healthcare" or whatever, I can't sit there and let that sort of thing be said without explaining to them all of the ramifications that a belief like that entails. So multiply this by the hodgepodge of beliefs most people hold and over the course of a year or so and there are going to be a lot of changes on someones part, not likely to be me, because, well, I am right about most of these things. Or at least integrated enough to justify them.

So do you mean that you ought to let them hold irrational beliefs like what I mentioned above, and focus on what the good you find in them?

Yes. For instance, I think one often stands a better chance converting a happy marxist into a happy Objectivist, than converting an unhappy "Objectivist" into a happy person.

I agree with that. Though I do have trouble imagining a happy marxist. Maybe a happy "mixed economist" would be better :( .

So regarding you and your wife, did her changing her philosophic beliefs cause any difficulty psychologically with your relationship or was the transition relatively smooth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when it is one sided to the extent it usually is, it seems to imbalance the relationship in a mentor/student kind of way that it usually the precursor to the end of passionate interest.

That is even more true in situations when it is the woman who takes on the teacher role. It is not a good idea.

1) Is it reasonable to date someone who is not what you want exactly while hoping they improve/try to change them or should one honestly kick back for 12 years and wait for dagny, galtstyle?

I think it all depends on how big of a change that would have to be.

I do not know any people around me who share my values. (It is sad but true). When I meet someone new, at some point, I introduce them to Rand's non fiction. If they are interested in me - they will want to learn 'what drives me' they would want to know why I am the way I am and why my values are what they are. Then I wait for their reaction. If they have similar sense of life as me - they will be at least on some level positively affected by what they read. I am not looking for them to accept my philosophy at this point (although that would be great - even better would be to date an Objectivist! - where are you?) but if they are completely unmoved by what I consider ideal characters then that is an indication to me that we are too far apart.

If they are completely unmoved they will never be able to fully appreciate me. A part of me (hmm ... a big part) will always be unvalued by them (in best scenario valued but not named).

If I discover that we are just too far apart I make no attempts to change them or their 'sense of life'. At this point I ether accept them the way they are or move on.

In case when I see that they have been positively affected by what they read; that the book gave them a lot to think about; that they feel challenged yet not afraid to face that challenge; only then I feel like this is a ground on which I could build on. That is the foundation on which I can see the possibility of 'growth'. That growth can only be spiked by their own curiosity. One can not encourage 'growth' or 'change' in a person if they are not open to exploration of new to them ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3)Why are there so few objectivist women as a percentage? In otherwords, what about the philosophy is so repellent?

I think being an Objectivist requires a great amount of thought and effort. In general, in our society, women can prove they're worthwhile to the opposite sex if they're physically attractive and not too catty. Men, however, must prove their worth through their abilities, whether those abilities are running a successful business or playing a sport. Acquiring an ability, and "being a man" requires thought and effort. Therefore, men are more likely to become Objectivists. As well as scientists. These are extremely broad generalities.

I've also noticed that I've met more men who are not Objectivists whose actions are rational and done with self-interest in mind. I understand why men (who are not Objectivists) do things moreso than I understand why women (also not Objectivists) do things. I understand why men like watching sports, although I personally prefer movies. I don't understand why girls cry at movies, especially girly ones like "The Wedding Singer". Or any movie with the word "wedding" in the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the same thought processes that parents use to give a boy a toy truck to play with and give a girl a doll affect the way they're brought up to think. Boys are taught to 'stay strong' when it comes to being emotional, whereas girls are often taught that 'it's ok to cry'- this provides a much deeper connection with emotions in girls than it does in boys, and those emotions often precede logical thought. I know many intelligent women who allow emotions to get in the way of logic- I am often guilty of this myself.

I had the gift of being born to logical and intelligent parents, specifically my father (my mother's smart, but she definately lets her emotions rule more often than they should.) I became the 'son' in the family- helping with woodworking projects and taught math at an early age, whereas my sister was closer to my mother and is clearly the 'daughter'. I think this came about because I'm the older one, and when my sister was born my mother had to devote more attention to her while my father spent more time with me, during that crucial toddler stage. I think if there was a larger age difference between us then I would have had a closer connection with my mother and would likely have a harder time being logical rather than emotional; the same would likely be true if my sister had been born first. I remember my father telling me at a very young age to go up to a stranger and say 'The square root of 81 is 9, and the square root of 9 is 3' which I would then do, though I had absolutely no idea what it meant. My sister, however, was never asked to do anything similar. She preferred her Barbies and I preferred my K'nex; she's going into physical therapy and I'm going into computer science. It's not that my sister isn't intelligent -she is- she's just not very logical.

My neighbors, for another example, were raised traditionally- the boys mowed the lawn and the girls did the laundry. The two boys are by far more logical than the two daughters, and the older daughter is the oldest of the children and more logical than her sister.

Because of all this, I am inclined to think that the lack of logical women arises mostly from how they were raised- anything that occurs at a later stage in life wouldn't have as much of an effect on the way somebody thinks. Makes it very hard to find good friends of my own sex- but at least I don't have to worry too much about my boyfriend finding somebody better than me ;)

Edited by miseleigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Maybe that is the correct question to ask. I have always attributed that to genetically based neurological differences. To be sure, I have known some women, brilliant at math and plenty of men who have great difficulty with concepts as abstract as long division, but the bell curves of ability in that regard are definately skewed. So what do you think? Why is engineering, math and physics repellent to women? Or, what causes the disinterest in ideas?

Not a clue, although I suspect women are more sensitive to and careful about their social status. There was kind of a neat thing I saw on Myrhaf's blog a while back, about how men will fall (ideologically) into stupidity (so caught up in their "big picture" crusade they forget about what else is going on) and women fall into idiocy (so caught up in managing every little detail that they forget the world is bigger than 2'X4').

I do not know what causes these traits, but they're very readily observable almost anywhere. Men either don't cook or they're gourmet chefs. Women hit a functional stage, where they are happy eating their own cooking, and stay there. In the medical field, women outnumber men hugely in pretty much every position, EXCEPT actual physicians. (Although that depends also on what sub-field of medicine you go into.)

Even I have so many things on my plate I don't really concentrate on any one of them to a huge degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I don't understand why girls cry at movies, especially girly ones like "The Wedding Singer". Or any movie with the word "wedding" in the title.

Hey, I cry at movies, although not the one that you mentioned; I cry at very sad, good movies like "Million Dollar Baby". I think this is because I am extremely up-front about my emotions, and really lousy at hiding them. That, and I completely lose myself in art, so I get very emotional about it.

I have this off-the-cuff theory that crying at happy things (like weddings or romance) is a result of a malevolent-universe-premise . . . you don't think good things are going to last, so when they do, they actually make you sad. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have this off-the-cuff theory that crying at happy things (like weddings or romance) is a result of a malevolent-universe-premise . . . you don't think good things are going to last, so when they do, they actually make you sad. Weird.

I disagree with this; I think crying is a response to very strong emotions, good or bad. Ayn Rand, after all, cried when she first saw the New York City skyline and arrived in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's a vague theory; I have occasional bits of evidence that suggest it, but nothing that would really back it up.
Well, for what its worth, I'll back it up with my own experience. At a point in my life, I regularly responded in an upset manner to things which I found to be beautiful or great. Specifically, beautiful art, music or movies, and even great personal traits I observed in other people, such as unapologetic confidence, or beautiful things in nature such as a sunset would really make me sad. And many times I would respond with tears.

The best way I can explain it is with your theory, and in fact I would think things like, "That's the way it's supposed to be," with the "...but it isn't" always implied. I have spent some time actively trying to shift my outlook to a "benevolent-universe-premise," with some pretty good success. I plan to continue my efforts because of my results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...