Integrity

[offtotheright]

My boyfriend (a fellow objectivist) barely responds to me whether I greet him or am speaking to him and will even walk away from me when I am speaking to him. He has no problem showing enthusiasm towards other people and professes to love me, yet he doesn't show it at all! He has even claimed he is indifferent to my presence! He believes this to be ok, and he tells me I should not show emotion if it is important to me

Not sure if it is lack of integrity or what making this happen, but in The Virtue of Selfishness integrity is described as loyality to one's convictions and values, and it is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values, of expressing, upholding, and translating them into practical reality. It says if a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.

He doesn't seem to communicate very well, even when prompted, and he will not be affectionate (ex: holding hands or a hug). He claims I sometimes make him uncomfortable when showing affection, but he doesn't have a problem with sex.

I take well to criticism...

[softwareNerd]

Reading that snippet, I gut reaction is to say "Dump the rat!", but there's obviously much more to the relationship than what you've posted.

I am curious though, whether this is the way your relationship has always been, or if it is something new. I'm also curious if this is something that is related to his newly found (if it is newly found) knowledge of (and perhaps mistaken understanding of) Objectivism.

[KendallJ]

My boyfriend (a fellow objectivist) barely responds to me whether I greet him or am speaking to him and will even walk away from me when I am speaking to him. He has no problem showing enthusiasm towards other people and professes to love me, yet he doesn't show it at all! He has even claimed he is indifferent to my presence! He believes this to be ok, and he tells me I should not show emotion if it is important to me

Not sure if it is lack of integrity or what making this happen, but in The Virtue of Selfishness integrity is described as loyality to one's convictions and values, and it is the policy of acting in accordance with one's values, of expressing, upholding, and translating them into practical reality. It says if a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.

He doesn't seem to communicate very well, even when prompted, and he will not be affectionate (ex: holding hands or a hug). He claims I sometimes make him uncomfortable when showing affection, but he doesn't have a problem with sex.

I take well to criticism...

Sounds to me like some psychological ideosyncrosies. Does he wish to introspect and the identify roots of his behavior? Or does he think there is nothing wrong with how he acts? If he loves you, then he ought to respect your opinion enough to at least take a look at himself. Ultimately, you need to judge his ability to be honest with himself, and act accordingly. Even if he means well.

[Bold Standard]

He [...] professes to love me, [...] He has even claimed he is indifferent to my presence!

Without knowing the context, this seems to be a pretty clear contradiction. Does he love you, or is he indifferent to your presence? It's impossible to feel both ways at the same time and in the same respect.

Maybe he's holding contradictory premises, or he could be lying to you...

he tells me I should not show emotion if it is important to me

Does this mean that it's okay to show emotion as long as it's not important to you? What is his reason for recommending this principle?

[Ifat Glassman]

My boyfriend (a fellow Objectivist) barely responds to me whether I greet him or am speaking to him and will even walk away from me when I am speaking to him.

Might be the "Howard Roark" syndrome. Let me explain:

The Howard Roark syndrome is a psychological problem in which the person is trying to imitate Howard Roark by trying to appear indifferent and "cool" by dropping all manners, or every type of behavior that might indicate any consideration for other people's emotions.

This syndrome may include hanging up on people, walking away when they speak, not letting them know important information about their schedule that have influence on your time and efforts.

There are two types of Roark syndromes: One is the second hander, who's main interest is to create the impression of being a Roark in the eyes of the people that matter to him, and the second type is a first hander that misinterprets ethics in a social context: in other words he believes that by being polite he would be unethical, a "non-Roark".

However, The person having the syndrome can only exercise this attitude on people who would be willing to take it, which are usually the closest people to that person, and the ones that value him the most (which are willing to stick around).

This is the same reason why children talk nastily to their parents and why some husbands beat up their wives while being nice to strangers: They know their loved ones will stick around.

He has even claimed he is indifferent to my presence! He believes this to be ok

Well, you have to bear in mind that when Howard Roark works, he is indifferent to everyone around him .

Don't know, maybe I am completely off with the Roark syndrome, you would have to consider this based on your knowledge of him.

He doesn't seem to communicate very well, even when prompted, and he will not be affectionate

My advice is: Force him to make a choice about how he treats you. Having the right person with the right traits isn't enough: if he doesn't value you enough or if he fails to understand the proper ways to communicate with someone he values, those are his problems and he needs to work them out. By staying you will only make those problems persist.

[softwareNerd]

Might be the "Howard Roark" syndrome.

While I understand your point, Ifat, it really rankles when people name "syndromes" after characters I admire. So, please, please, get your thinking hat on and come up with a different name.

My advice is: Force him to make a choice about how he treats you.

This is easier said than done though! Not everyone can pull this off without appearing to be demanding attention or insinuating some inadequacy in the other person, both of which can actually sour things further. So, one has to think about an approach that is "light", objective, loving, and gives him somehing to think about more than it puts him in a corner.

[Ifat Glassman]

While I understand your point, Ifat, it really rankles when people name "syndromes" after characters I admire. So, please, please, get your thinking hat on and come up with a different name.

, I admire the character of Howard Roark as well. I was talking about people who misinterpret his character. If someone considers the idea behind the "syndrome" then they too realize that there is nothing wrong with the character of Roark himself.

But alright then, I am changing the name of the syndrome to the "pseudo Roark syndrome". Is this better now?

This is easier said than done though! Not everyone can pull this off without appearing to be demanding attention or insinuating some inadequacy in the other person, both of which can actually sour things further. So, one has to think about an approach that is "light", objective, loving, and gives him something to think about more than it puts him in a corner.

There is a limit to what a man of self esteem agrees to take. For me, walking away while I am speaking to someone as a routine, refusal to consider my ideas, and general disrespect are the line.

If the problem in his attitude was something less meaningful (like lack of affectionate behavior) I would not give such advice, but I would advice to talk about it further. But when someone does not even give you enough credit to hear you out, I see no point in continuing to talking to them, just like I don't see the point in talking sense into someone who does not use reason to think.

[softwareNerd]

"pseudo Roark syndrome". Is this better now?

I'll buy that (reluctantly).

There is a limit to what a man of self esteem agrees to take.

Sure. Simply "taking it" would be irrational; one has to act to change things if they aren't working. If ending the relationship is the appropriate action, that's fine. However, if it isn't -- if it is based on a presumption of great romantic value in the other person -- then one's action has to reflect that presumption.

[offtotheright]

I just wanted to say that our relationship hasn't always been like this. How he initially acted is what attracted me to him. I would NEVER be attracted to the mind of a person that chooses to ignore the people he professes to love.

As far as the pseudo Roark syndrome, I think the nail took a hit on the head here. It sounds largely what he could be experimenting with, since this has not happened before.

[Maarten]

Well, I think that if you want to preserve the relationship then it is imperative to bring up this issue and let him know how much it bothers you. You can start discussing how it makes you feel, and his reaction to that should be able to tell you whether he cares enough about you to consider changing his newly found behaviour. I think you need to make clear to him that no matter his intentions behind him, his actions are perceived by you in a certain way and that it is this perception that hurts; because it implies lack of interest on his part. If he's trying to make a point with his behaviour, then he should at least know that it is also implicitly sending another message: namely, that he doesn't care about others, not even about those he should care about.

[KevinD]

Forget Objectivism or armchair psychoanalysis for a moment. How are your boyfriend's actions affecting YOU?

I would NEVER be attracted to the mind of a person that chooses to ignore the people he professes to love.

Does this describe your present emotional attitude toward him and the relationship?

[offtotheright]

Does this describe your present emotional attitude toward him and the relationship?

Good question. No, this is not my present attitude. I was attracted to the beauty of his mind initially (it was really quite remarkable). Since he has began to, in my eyes, spiral downward, I have still been making the same, if not greater efforts in our relationship to hopefully remedy the situation. The attitude I described would hold true with anyone I meet. Once I became aware of their severe contradiction of terms here, I would not be attracted to them. With my boyfriend, I have not known this behavior from him before.

Edited September 18, 2006 by JMeganSnow

[offtotheright]

Forget Objectivism or armchair psychoanalysis for a moment. How are your boyfriend's actions affecting YOU?

Didn't see this question before. Let's see... how is his attitude (and sometimes lack thereof) making me feel. Honestly (but not too honestly), I have felt like absolute shit and an absolutely worthless tearful mess until yesterday when I made a list of my main virtues (all 23 of them) and realized that I lived my life by every one of them. I was beginning to fall a bit short on "self-interest" though, and it made me realize that I needed to take a moment to redefine my character. I love who I am, and I love this man to pieces! I cannot continue to love him if he has changed his character and continues to not stand by his virtues.

But I want him so badly, and I want this to work. I don't want to corner him, or intimidate him, but I do want some answers.

Is it too much to ask your lover to open up to you, to share his thoughts, feeling, what/who he loves, and what he hates? Suddenly I feel as if I know so little about him...

[KevinD]

I made a list of my main virtues (all 23 of them) . . .

Wow — 23 virtues! I only have 19. I'm impressed.

Honestly (but not too honestly), I have felt like absolute shit and an absolutely worthless tearful mess . . .

If that's not being excessively honest, I'd hate to hear to hear the impolite version.

I want him so badly, and I want this to work.

Why do you want him so badly?

You say that he has told you he loves you. Do you believe he's telling you the truth?

[offtotheright]

Why do you want him so badly?

You say that he has told you he loves you. Do you believe he's telling you the truth?

I want him so badly because he has so much to offer me in the way of knowledge and ideas. I know I can learn so much from him and have much to give in return. Funny, but when we were only acquaintences, after learning how I felt about so many things, he asked if I knew what Objectivism was. I then learned that what I believed most of my life had a name. Since then, my foundation has strengthened, and I owe it to him.

In regards to whether or not he is telling me the truth, I have no way to know that he is not.

(Fixed quote block tags. -sN)

Edited September 17, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Febod]

But I want him so badly, and I want this to work. I don't want to corner him, or intimidate him, but I do want some answers.

I think that this is your problem. You really love him, and even when he acts like a jerk, you still love him, so why not act like a jerk?

I'm actually a recovering jerk, so i can understand where your boyfriend is coming from. He probably doesn't want to hurt you, but he does see that you'll stick by him no matter what, so he takes what he can get. He sees that you're lacking self-respect within the context of the relationship, so why should he respect you within the context of the relationship.

Take it from me, the only way to save this relationship is to start setting boundaries. no amount of love or trying to make it work will ever do the trick.

[offtotheright]

Take it from me, the only way to save this relationship is to start setting boundaries. no amount of love or trying to make it work will ever do the trick.

Thank you Febod.

Edited September 18, 2006 by JMeganSnow

[~Sophia~]

Funny, but when we were only acquaintences, after learning how I felt about so many things, he asked if I knew what Objectivism was. I then learned that what I believed most of my life had a name. Since then, my foundation has strengthened, and I owe it to him.

(bold mine)

Although you may be greatful to a person for introducing you to true ideas, whatever you have done as a result of having that new knowledge, whatever intelectual and moral integration you were able to achieve as a result - is your own achievement.

[Olex]

... is your own achievement.

I second Sophia on this one.

Getting one's hands on Objectivism can produce awesome results, that are clearly visible to introspection. And one might wish to have found it much early. And maybe even thank the person who finally pointed it out of the whole bunch of useless stuff in modern and past philosophy.

However, it is still your achievement. Objectivism takes a great deal of mental work, energy, and courage to parse and intergrate. Your work on this matter cannot compare to another person simply pointing in the right direction (of Objectivist philosophy).

That said, you, offtotheright (what a weird name), did not specify how much help you got. If the help was of a great deal, such as the quality of articles and books of Ayn Rand, then some degree of gratitude is in order. However, reading through above posts, do not lead me to such conclusion.

The tough part here are the details and the correct calculation of how much do his actions (related to Objectivism discovery, its introduction, etc.) worth if at all.

----

This reminds of Roark giving an extra chance to Gail Wynand in the end of the book. (Ask me to clarify if you don't know what I mean)

----

The following has not been answered directly in any of the threads. It sounds like communication is a real problem here. Some points discussed above are done with half-guesses, instead of the replies received from the guy. There must be something here, as I can't imagine a situation where a relationship can go on with such an obstacle. Is there?

EDIT: clarifications and spellings

Edited September 18, 2006 by Olex

[Ifat Glassman]

This reminds of Roark giving an extra chance to Gail Wynand in the end of the book. (Ask me to clarify if you don't know what I mean)

Yeah, please clarify what you mean.

It sounds like communication is a real problem here. Some points discussed above are done with half-guesses, instead of the replies received from the guy.

Well, how would you advise her to communicate with someone who refuses to communicate?

Should she chase after him and talk to him as he walks away? Or maybe to talk to him while hoping that maybe this time he would not disappear at any given moment, if he feels like it?

My boyfriend (a fellow Objectivist) barely responds to me whether I greet him or am speaking to him and will even walk away from me when I am speaking to him.

...

He doesn't seem to communicate very well, even when prompted

(bold emphasis mine)

She also said that she did make tremendous efforts to communicate, but no efforts were made by him:

I have still been making the same, if not greater efforts in our relationship to hopefully remedy the situation.

Unless the guy completely changes his attitude, I don't see how any further attempts to remedy the situation can do any good.

Edited September 18, 2006 by ifatart

[Olex]

Yeah, please clarify what you mean.

This was the part at the end of the book, where Gail had began to fall apart mentally, losing many of his rational virtues. At this point, Roark did not judge quite the same way as he would usually do others. He did not follow his judgement precisely, but gave Gail benefit of the doubt, allowing him for more layaway then he would give many others. Roark did change his mind after seeing how Gail fall apart, pretty quickly.

I do not have the book with me for the moment, but I do recall Ayn Rand stating that Roark gave Gail something that one gives only to those one loves - extra chances (I don't recall the exact phrase here). I will look it up once I get my hands on The Fountainhead again.

Well, how would you advise her to communicate with someone who refuses to communicate?

One cannot in such case.

Unless the guy completely changes his attitude, I don't see how any further attempts to remedy the situation can do any good.

Yes, I agree with that.

[Olex]

I've found the book nearby. Here is the snippet I'm referring to:

He [Roark]did not know that Wynand had once said all love is exception-making; and Wynand would not know that Roark had loved him enough to make his greatest exception, one moment when he tried to compromise. Then he knew it was useless, like all sacrifices.

Pg. 698, top of the page, The Fountainhead, Book "Howard Roark", chapter XVII

[offtotheright]

To answer some of your questions, I have spoken with him about this matter. Every time we conversed, it was initiated by me, and the need for communication was largely discussed. I found an enormous need for better communication in our relationship and wanted both of us to strive for it.

On the contrary, he believes lack of communication isn't a problem. I didn't seem to pick up from his side of the conversation what the problem is, if not lack of communication. He basically doesn't want me to question him, and his reasons for not questioning me are that he trusts me. Please keep in mind that I do provide him with all relevant information about my whereabouts (irrelevant would be "I'm going to be in the bathroom for ten minutes") so he doesn't ever need to ask.

To me, good communication basically eliminates the need to question the whereabouts of your partner (so they don't feel you are assaulting them every time they come home), their honesty, and their loyalty. Here, he stated that if I didn't trust him, then I didn't deserve to be with him. Imagine that...

He really seems unwilling to try to better things, but I don't think he knows that if this continues, I will not stick around while he pretends to be Howard Roark- he admitted to trying to act like characters in Rand's novels. My issue with this is while I enjoy her novels and their characters very much, I have a problem with the relationships where lovers say something like

"I want you, so I am going to effectively punish myself and not carry out my feelings even though I want to and you want me to. See you again in ten years or so."

While I was talking to him, I was calm and careful with my words, whereas he was slouched back like a child being diciplined with his arms folded, and a very interesting added touch of constant exasperated sighs and eye rolling.

This did not look good to me.

I am not married to this man, but I do live with him. My name is not on the lease.

I want him to want to help me fix what has gone wrong. I can't do it by myself.

[KendallJ]

That ain't no Howard Roark...

[Ifat Glassman]

He really seems unwilling to try to better things, but I don't think he knows that if this continues, I will not stick around while he pretends to be Howard Roark

Then you should let him know that.

My issue with this is while I enjoy her novels and their characters very much, I have a problem with the relationships where lovers say something like

"I want you, so I am going to effectively punish myself and not carry out my feelings even though I want to and you want me to. See you again in ten years or so."

The problem is not with Ayn Rand's novels, but with this shortcut for self esteem that your boyfriend is making. The characters in the novel had a certain context for their decisions. He doesn't have the same context.

What he is doing is quite similar to the way some teenagers try to imitate members of their favorite band...

Unfortunately, I don't have any advice on possible ways to "reach out" to him. I know how frustrating it feels, especially because you knew him at a time when you found his mind to be functioning well. You keep on thinking that maybe if you try hard enough you would find some way through... But honestly, I don't know if such a change can come from anything you do. Give it some more thought: If you come up with the conclusion that you can't change it, learn to accept this fact: that you cannot change him. Only he can.

I just feel sorry for you, I know how you must feel. I used to have a friend I really admired a few years ago.

She went through some bad time and changed 180 degrees in character. The most painful thing about it was the process of realizing that it indeed happened, and the inability to understand how or why (she refused to talk to me about it, and in general).

I want him to want to help me fix what has gone wrong. I can't do it by myself.

Yep. You just have to learn to accept that fact: You cannot do it yourself. The sooner you accept it the better you would feel.