You ran afoul of the use/mention distinction in 2, Tia. You can do it right by using the HTML for the greater-than and less-than signs (> and <), e.g., <br> (hope I got that right).
Don't mothers tend to love their children more than the other way around, for all of their lives? Or, at least, isn't that the classic vision of motherhood?
my theory is that economists are strangely capable of being seduced by manifestly ridiculous formalisms (except for Brad DeLong). also, Tia's formatting is teh pretty.
This does strike me as silly. A stronger counterexample is of a warm, friendly, social butterfly type with a lot of friends, one or more of whom is more introverted and socially isolated (a social clam?). The butterfly is going to be more important to the clam than the reverse, because the butterfly is friends with a dozen other butterflies and clams, but the clam is only friends with one butterfly.
I guess I understand why someone wants to believe this, and the thesis is broadly descriptive of common desirable outcomes — We expect the best from and want to be in relationships where the love is strong and mutual — but seems completely unhelpful. You spend all of your time naming and categorizing and rationalizing outcomes, without having gained any predictive power or insight.
I guess I understand why someone wants to believe this
I think this is really what is driving Cowen's thesis. I'm willing to believe no one will willingly stay in a relationship of any kind that she deems to be inequitable and unfair to herself. But one can count the costs and benefits in any idiosyncratic way she wants, so this doesn't seem like much of an advance.
19: I think not, actually. I mean, I adore PK and would die for him, blah blah, and in that sense I love him "more" than he does me. But on the other hand, his love for me is so purely unselfconscious; he doesn't think "I like X quality about her, but not Y" (yet). I am, in his mind, perfect. He isn't perfect to me, but I love him anyway. Plus, kids are so dependent on their parents. Even if the parent is abusive and horrible, children still desperately, desperately love them. Even, I think, if the love is mixed with hate (and the hate, if its there, is partly from the love).
Anyway, this whole "love more" "love less" thing is silly. It's a quality, not a quantity thing, love is. IMHO.
I'd like to be contrary and find a way to agree with Cowen, but I just can't. It's possible actually means something like "the sum of like-itude over the lifespan of a relationship approaches symmetry" but even that has obvious counterexamples.
How the hell is liking, loving, loathing, feeling indifferent toward another person an economic transaction? It doesn't seem worthwhile/productive to twist my consciousness around so I can view it as one.
Maybe over the long term his thesis is true, but only because over the long term 'polite indifference' describes 99.9% of human encounters, the remaining 0.1% being the people we continually interact with asymmetrically.
34- But isn't the cultural story that your love for and dependence on your parents diminishes all the time, whereas your mom remains obsessive about you into adulthood?
isn't the Cowen Symmetry Thesis just a simplified version of the Beatles Symmetry Thesis, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make," ?
Perhaps Trenton, NJ, whose motto "Trenton makes, the world takes" is spelled out in lights on a bridge as you ride into town, thus disproves the Beatles/Cowen position.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
I would read this to mean that the aggregate amount of love you feel for persons generally is equal to the aggregate amount of love you get back.
Which may actually be true.
As opposed to the Cowen thesis, which I think is not only not correct, but I think the opposite is correct: there is always asymmetry, and in fact those feelings tend to diverge rather than converge.
So, to recap:
The love you take is equal to the love you make.
We come together 'cause opposites attract,
except when they drive us apart,
leaving us in polite indifference,
to die. in the rain.
A weakened version of Cowen's thesis is plausible (but false, I think), but it seems that his reaction to counterexamples is to redefine the terms to encompass them and extend the time limit to infinity.
Since we're all godless liberal commie buttphags (seriously, if the Troll of Sorrow has given us anything in recompense for his abuse, it's the word "buttphag") over here, we care no more about the antichrist than we do about the christ.
I used to have a thesis that, by definition, it was impossible to be in love with someone who didn't love you. You might be enamored, infatuated, or obsessed, but inasmuch as love (should), by definition, involves an accurate picture and real understanding of the other, it would be impossible to truly be in love with someone who was indifferent or hostile to you, because their feelings would necessarily make you realize that your attentions were unwelcome.
It's a crap theory, of course, but it was actually kind of helpful when I was younger, in giving me a rationalization for why relationships in which I was insecure weren't really very good ones.
I don't know, I think 59 kind of makes sense, at least in the case of people claiming to be "in love" with someone who has never returned their affections (if they once did and then stopped, that's a whole different story). I find that to be both implausible, and creepy.
Don't you have a bootstrapping problem? Or is the love of two loving lovers who love each ovver fundamentally unanalyzable into the love one has for the other and the love the other has for the one? Or fundamentally shared? Or maybe the two proto-lovers urge each other on through stages of infatuation to being enamored and so on until they suddenly break through, both at once in a rush of simultaneity, to love the other?
Of course you've already admitted it's a crap theory, so it needn't be addressed. I'd like to reiterate, though, that Tyler is either nuts or self-deceived or something if he really thinks his thesis is true.
60: Yeah, I think that "creepy" feeling is a big part of why I came up with it in the first place. But it's a remarkably good way of short-circuiting that stupid "I love so and so so much, and I'm sure he really loves me . . ." feeling one gets when interested in or dating a pretty inattentive person.
48: after thinking about it, I realize there are too many counterexamples and my theory is insupportable.
But I have found at least anecdotally that oftentimes as your affection for someone increases, their affection seems to decrease proportionally, particularly in youthful heterosexual relationships where "the thrill of the chase" is a very real (and annoying) phenomenon.
But maybe that's just me, and I only like people who are indifferent to me.
Eh, the first stages of mutual love are as much about constructed fantasies of the other guy as the unrequited kind. Full disclosure: I've been in love with people who've never returned my affections.
Cowen's cheat seems to be to just keep the clock running. So, Tia has been in love with people who haven't returned her affections. But is she in love with them now? No? Equilibrium. I've been in love with someone who loved me more, and we broke up, and neither of us loves each other now. Equilibrium. So his thesis seems to be that given enough time, even break-ups end up in an equilibrium.
So the theory is only good insofar as we give sufficient time to it. Of course, this renders it useless for predictions beyond the hindsight kind, especially as the time approaches the heat death of the universe.
Ah, but (so runs the crappy theory), if the first stages are idealized, then part of the eventual love is that the ideals are based in some reality of the other person's character, blah blah the best self theory. And/or the first stages are infatuation, which may eventually grow *into* love, but isn't the same thing.
The fabulous thing about crap theories is that they can be endlessly adjusted. I'm completely devoted to crap theories. Although Tyler's isn't a good crap theory, even though it does allow for endless adjustment, simply because not only is it obviously wishful thinking, but it's easily twisted around to justify really fucked-up behavior, in the "I know you want it, baby" kind of way.
Plus he dismisses the love-for-intrinsic-qualities thing, which is just plain wrong. In fact, I would say the main difference between his (bad) crap theory and my (good) crap theory is that his relies on an idea of love as gratitude (I love you because you love me, and I'm flattered) rather than love as recognition (I love you because I understand and admire who you are). His love theory adjusts over time because it's inherently unstable; mine doesn't, because people may change but, absent major brain damage, their basic characters usually don't.
67: Clock-running. The over time thing also has the advantage of allowing even for really fucked-up abusive relationships. X loves Y, though Y is dangerously abusive. Clearly Y does not love X; indeed, eventually Y kills X. Does X love Y now? No; X is dead. See? The theory works!
I don't see why we couldn't love someone while fully understanding that, in fact, they do not reciprocate, or that they possess bad qualities, etc. Esp givin that this: inasmuch as love (should), by definition, involves an accurate picture and real understanding of the other, it would be impossible to truly be in love with someone who was indifferent or hostile to you, seems to rely on "doesn't love me" being something like "indifferent or hostile to me", whereas in fact person A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure.
I think it's probably true that the mutual affection in any non-cursory, stable, and honest relationship will quickly approach symmetry. Examining how these various assumptions routinely fail can be enlightening.
On second thought, I've probably missed some qualifications.
Ah! That's why I said "in love with," as opposed to "love." I can, for instance, love you despite your pedantry and taste in pocket watches; but I couldn't possibly be *in* love with you, because these characteristics are inherently repellent.
A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure
This seems unlikely to me. I suppose it would depend on B's chosen expression of their love, but I think we tend to think that people should not pursue people who don't reciprocate, and would inevitably become annoyed at another's lack of adjustment to our lack of love.
Given that Western discourse on love practically *begins* with the lover/beloved dynamic (Plato, "Phaedrus" ... now THERE is a reading group), Cowen's thesis seems to suffer the common problem of an economist's thinking nothing by a non-economist is worth taking seriously.
Tia, I like CBT, more creative than my own BFT (Bitch From Texas). But my wife coined that for my ex, so I guess it's not really "my own."
Ah! That's why I said "in love with," as opposed to "love." I can, for instance, love you despite your pedantry and taste in pocket watches; but I couldn't possibly be *in* love with you, because these characteristics are inherently repellent.
One of the people I was in love with I was good friends with at the time, so I in fact knew him well and had access to info about his person. The other one I didn't, as it was a five day relationship that triggered the bout of being in love, although we later got together for real, and later still became friends, and honestly, I don't think my from a distance portrait was that much better than the one I eventually got up close. The thing I was responding to from a distance wasn't false, either. Sometimes a lot can be gleaned about a person from a little.
Also, I'm not sure that the gratitude thing, although I wouldn't use that word, isn't a lot of what love is as it gets constructed throughout the relationship. At least in my case, I'm not sure I ever loved Graham for his qualities as much as I loved him for the experience of being with him. His qualities enabled the experience, of course. I imagine if we'd gotten married and had kids, I'd have loved him for being the man who helped and supported me and was father to my children.
75: Tia mentioned relations with some relative where she tries to hide her annoyance, and this leads to a relatively stable, non-honest, somewhat cursory relationship. An honest, non-cursory, unstable relationship would, I imagine, be any case of unrequited love.
But "factitious" is a great word! You may think you dislike constantly turning to the dictionary now, but in the long run it's best for you and I only do it 'cause I love you. Now come on over here and gimme some sugar.
Well, assymmetric relationships tend to be less stable over time than symmetric ones, so saying that only stable relationships tend toward symmetry is something like saying only edible food hasn't spoiled yet. But, yeah.
It does seem to imply that unrequited -> unstable (which isn't true), which might further imply that stable -> requited (still not true), which certainly doesn't imply that stable -> symmetrical.
Would it have been worthwhile, if one,
Starting a disagreement, or trying to start a brawl,
Turned to the dictionary and said,
"That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all."
"Assymmetric relationships" are those which are based on the size, shape, fitness, etc. of the rear end, I take it?
I thought we were discussing symmetry and asymmetry, stuff like that, but if you want to talk about assy metrics, that's cool too. I think I must have mentioned my friend's friend from Brazil (IIRC) who had devised a complex taxonomy of asses?
What all else? I mean, historically speaking, extremely unequal relationships have often lasted for a very long time; and equality (which I take to be equivalent to "symmetry") is hard to maintain. And how do we define "stable," relationship-wise? Are we talking simply about not getting divorced, or what? Not to mention symmetry. Is a relationship where both partners play traditional roles "by choice," and feel this is fair, symmetrical? I'd say no; a lot of people would say yes.
However, I'll go along with an argument that the most important way to keep a relationship happy is not to correct the other person's grammar.
I know from personal experience, that if you love with a love that is more than love - a love coveted by the winged seraphs of heaven - nothing good will come of it, and all the night tide one of you will find yourself loving the other, asymetrically, by the sea.
99: Unrequited is a subset of asymmetrical. Unless you think that love is a binary yes/no thing, in which case unrequited and asymmetrical are just the same. But then you'd be wrong. Anyway, you'd be wrong to say that unrequited → unstable anyway, so.
82: I knew an old married couple who were in their late 70's who fell in love at first sight. He knew the first day he met her that he wanted to marry her, and he asked her by the end of the week. They've been together ever since. Sappy but true.
73:
A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure.
This seems unlikely to me. I suppose it would depend on B's chosen expression of their love, but I think we tend to think that people should not pursue people who don't reciprocate, and would inevitably become annoyed at another's lack of adjustment to our lack of love.
First of all, not all love is romantic love, although Cowen may have been restricting his comments to romantic love, and the issue of pursuit does not loom large when we're talking about other kinds of love.
I also think that various types of unrequited love could be met with genuine appreciation rather than disdain, and in some circumstances the object of love might not even be aware that s/he is loved.
I have an example for the philosophically inclined amongst us. In Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein, Duty of Genius he describes a couple of relationships which might seem to fit with the asymmetry theory. Francis Skinner clearly loved Wittgenstein more than Wittgenstein loved him, though they were romantically involved.
There was also some working class kid named Keith Kirk whom Wittgenstein tutored in physics and mechanics to prepare him for the City and Guilds exams. From Monk's book on pp. 426-427:
To Kirk these lessons from a Cambridge professor were nothing but an unexpected and extremely welcome source of help, and a remarkable opportunity. From Wittgenstein's diary, however, it appears that he thought rather more of the relationship than one would expect....
Kirk never had the slightest idea that Wittgenstein's feelings for him were anything other than those of a helpful teacher. After the lesson he would occasionally accompany Skinner and Wittgenstein to see a Western at the local cinema, but apart from that he saw little of Wittgenstein outside of his periods of instruction.
Unrequited love may not be unstable, but I would argue that it is, ultimately, unsustainable. At least for people who are reasonably psychologically healthy.
115: Does it? Can't you be in a very stable unrequited situation? And can't you be in an unsustainable love that is, nonetheless, stable? Like, for example, let's say that you're in love with someone who is consistently selfish. You may not be able to sustain that love, but surely your knowledge that this person is always going to be like that is a kind of stability.
126: For instance, Tim. I know that you are always going to be just wrong on so many things. My knowledge of this is stable. I also know that I will therefore be unable to sustain affection for you for more than a short while, because eventually you will be wrong about something and it will annoy me. My affection for you is therefore unsustainable, although it is stable in the sense that, during the short time in which I feel it, it takes into account your incredible wrongness on most issues.
My own Crap Theory on this matter (which I attribute to The Bridge of San Luis Rey) is The Unsymmetry Thesis. Namely that there is no such thing as a symmetric relationship between people. Even if the difference is slight, there's the person who cares more and the person who cares less. The only question is which person is which. It's depressing, and not terribly acurate, but it's certainly better than Tyler's theory.
Posted by
Unfoggatarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) |
Link to this comment |
06- 7-06 2:15 PM
Also, to paraphrase those shirts that seem to pop up periodically on campuses, "I agree with 23."
Posted by
Unfoggatarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) |
Link to this comment |
06- 7-06 2:17 PM
134
126: For instance, Tim. I know that you are always going to be just wrong on so many things. My knowledge of this is stable. I also know that I will therefore be unable to sustain affection for you for more than a short while, because eventually you will be wrong about something and it will annoy me. My affection for you is therefore unsustainable, although it is stable in the sense that, during the short time in which I feel it, it takes into account your incredible wrongness on most issues.
Why don't you just say it's sustainable but bumpy? There are some days when the sustaining doesn't happen. Tim has uttered something disastrously wrong. But then you know that's a part of him, so you know that you'll be back to feeling affection again in a day or two. Sounds totally sustainable.
"Sustainable" doesn't mean "continuously always sustainable with no gaps ever pinkyswear".
No, I didn't mean bumpy and back to feeling affection. I meant that at some point the temporary affection I feel will evaporate entirely, and I'll revert to sustainable dislike.
Anyway, I'm sorry to say that Tim has probably gotten past the dislike thing for me and probably is sustainably bumpy nowadays. I'll have to find someone else to be constantly irritated by.
134: Well, priaprism is painful and dangerous, yeah. But I dunno if four hours is the cutoff point between "damn!" and "uh oh" or not. It's well after the cutoff point for whining and cajoling, though.
La Rochefoucauld said that there's always one partner who loves the other one more, and that the less-loving partner will always zing the more-loving partner at the worst possible moment.
Why can't I format block quotes? I put in
tags. I don't get the internet.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:50 AM
I mean tags.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:50 AM
1: But your blank verse moves me.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:50 AM
arrgh! I can't even make my tags show up.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:51 AM
I mean tags
As opposed to what word in 1 that was not "tags"?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:51 AM
Imagine "br" with brackets around it. That's what I mean.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:52 AM
I did it! I'm a geniuse! Apparently I needed two of those tags per paragraph break.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:54 AM
I think it's the "imagine" part that's tripping you up -- browsers can't do that you know. Not with the current state of technology anyways.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:55 AM
Oooh, pretty formatting!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:56 AM
In the long run, we are all indifferent to each other.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:56 AM
Who said that no ending is a good ending because otherwise things would never end? Reminds me of the symmetry thesis.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:56 AM
eb, I thought about making a very similar joke. You know, I like you.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:58 AM
11 -- is that meant to prove that no ending is a good ending? Because things don't ever end. Or at any rate they have not to date.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:59 AM
You ran afoul of the use/mention distinction in 2, Tia. You can do it right by using the HTML for the greater-than and less-than signs (> and <), e.g., <br> (hope I got that right).
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 10:59 AM
Fuck to oboe. >br<
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:00 AM
Okay, I quit.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:00 AM
Imagine "br" with brackets around it.
That works, but if you want to be proper about it, you would enter it as <p>paragraph1</p><p>paragraph2</p> and so forth.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:01 AM
I mean to say, beginnings and endings are a human construct that we fit sloppily over a seamless reality.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:01 AM
Don't mothers tend to love their children more than the other way around, for all of their lives? Or, at least, isn't that the classic vision of motherhood?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:02 AM
my theory is that economists are strangely capable of being seduced by manifestly ridiculous formalisms (except for Brad DeLong). also, Tia's formatting is teh pretty.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:03 AM
Tia, I think this might be the beginning of a symmetrical friendship.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:03 AM
Tia's formatting is teh pretty.
Is that what the kids are calling them these days?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:04 AM
This does strike me as silly. A stronger counterexample is of a warm, friendly, social butterfly type with a lot of friends, one or more of whom is more introverted and socially isolated (a social clam?). The butterfly is going to be more important to the clam than the reverse, because the butterfly is friends with a dozen other butterflies and clams, but the clam is only friends with one butterfly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:05 AM
I guess the date went OK, but I can't tell whether there's any real symmetry between us.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:06 AM
I guess I understand why someone wants to believe this, and the thesis is broadly descriptive of common desirable outcomes — We expect the best from and want to be in relationships where the love is strong and mutual — but seems completely unhelpful. You spend all of your time naming and categorizing and rationalizing outcomes, without having gained any predictive power or insight.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:08 AM
17: With the stylesheets around here, doesn't that mess up the formatting of second and subsequent paragraphs within a blockquote?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:09 AM
Absent a metric for "like," I have no idea what he means. Equally willing to have sex, lend money, spend time together...what?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:11 AM
Shorter time: does he mean "like" or "like like"?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:12 AM
26: No.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:13 AM
Are your feelings for me symmetrical to my feelings for you? Check yes__ or no__
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:15 AM
For symmetry's sake, I'll need to check both, Smasher.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:18 AM
I guess I understand why someone wants to believe this
I think this is really what is driving Cowen's thesis. I'm willing to believe no one will willingly stay in a relationship of any kind that she deems to be inequitable and unfair to herself. But one can count the costs and benefits in any idiosyncratic way she wants, so this doesn't seem like much of an advance.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:18 AM
"Shorter time" s/b "Shorter Tim"
I think my typos are increasing in frequency.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:18 AM
19: I think not, actually. I mean, I adore PK and would die for him, blah blah, and in that sense I love him "more" than he does me. But on the other hand, his love for me is so purely unselfconscious; he doesn't think "I like X quality about her, but not Y" (yet). I am, in his mind, perfect. He isn't perfect to me, but I love him anyway. Plus, kids are so dependent on their parents. Even if the parent is abusive and horrible, children still desperately, desperately love them. Even, I think, if the love is mixed with hate (and the hate, if its there, is partly from the love).
Anyway, this whole "love more" "love less" thing is silly. It's a quality, not a quantity thing, love is. IMHO.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:19 AM
I'd like to be contrary and find a way to agree with Cowen, but I just can't. It's possible actually means something like "the sum of like-itude over the lifespan of a relationship approaches symmetry" but even that has obvious counterexamples.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:24 AM
the sum of like-itude
How the hell is liking, loving, loathing, feeling indifferent toward another person an economic transaction? It doesn't seem worthwhile/productive to twist my consciousness around so I can view it as one.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:28 AM
(Not intending that as a disagreement with Mr. H but with the premise of Mr. Cowen's post.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:28 AM
I use "x loves y" when I'm trying to explain why order of the arguments matters in predicate notation. Sheesh.
It does sound like Cowen may be arguing for a long-term equilibrium. Or maybe this holds for homo economicus, who is spherical.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:41 AM
It's a quality, not a quantity thing, love is. IMHO.
Oh, it's both. IMHPants.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:44 AM
Maybe over the long term his thesis is true, but only because over the long term 'polite indifference' describes 99.9% of human encounters, the remaining 0.1% being the people we continually interact with asymmetrically.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:54 AM
40 is a really nice take on the calculus of relationships.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:57 AM
34- But isn't the cultural story that your love for and dependence on your parents diminishes all the time, whereas your mom remains obsessive about you into adulthood?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:15 PM
isn't the Cowen Symmetry Thesis just a simplified version of the Beatles Symmetry Thesis, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make," ?
Posted by peep | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:18 PM
42: This is true.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:19 PM
Perhaps Trenton, NJ, whose motto "Trenton makes, the world takes" is spelled out in lights on a bridge as you ride into town, thus disproves the Beatles/Cowen position.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:21 PM
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
I would read this to mean that the aggregate amount of love you feel for persons generally is equal to the aggregate amount of love you get back.
Which may actually be true.
As opposed to the Cowen thesis, which I think is not only not correct, but I think the opposite is correct: there is always asymmetry, and in fact those feelings tend to diverge rather than converge.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:24 PM
So, to recap:
The love you take is equal to the love you make.
We come together 'cause opposites attract,
except when they drive us apart,
leaving us in polite indifference,
to die. in the rain.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:29 PM
and in fact those feelings tend to diverge rather than converge.
Care to expand?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:31 PM
The symmetry thesis: A given person likes (loves) you as much as you like (love) him or her.
I don't know how any intelligent person could possible believe this for more than one second.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:33 PM
Someone capable of the typo in the prior comment, on the other hand, is almost certainly convinced of it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:35 PM
A weakened version of Cowen's thesis is plausible (but false, I think), but it seems that his reaction to counterexamples is to redefine the terms to encompass them and extend the time limit to infinity.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:37 PM
So, how y'all doing? I just flew in yesterday. Fiery crisps have very symmetrical feelings toward each other, you know.
Posted by Maitreya | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:37 PM
Jeez, everyone's excited about some broad's sister, but the antichrist appears and no one can be fucking bothered?
Posted by Maitreya | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:45 PM
There are more things in these interwebs, Maitreya, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:46 PM
Day late, dollar short.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:46 PM
Since we're all godless liberal commie buttphags (seriously, if the Troll of Sorrow has given us anything in recompense for his abuse, it's the word "buttphag") over here, we care no more about the antichrist than we do about the christ.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:47 PM
I wonder what Cowen thinks about ... the ingenue!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:48 PM
Y'mean the nymphet?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:49 PM
I used to have a thesis that, by definition, it was impossible to be in love with someone who didn't love you. You might be enamored, infatuated, or obsessed, but inasmuch as love (should), by definition, involves an accurate picture and real understanding of the other, it would be impossible to truly be in love with someone who was indifferent or hostile to you, because their feelings would necessarily make you realize that your attentions were unwelcome.
It's a crap theory, of course, but it was actually kind of helpful when I was younger, in giving me a rationalization for why relationships in which I was insecure weren't really very good ones.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:50 PM
I don't know, I think 59 kind of makes sense, at least in the case of people claiming to be "in love" with someone who has never returned their affections (if they once did and then stopped, that's a whole different story). I find that to be both implausible, and creepy.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:53 PM
Hey, I had the same thesis, Dr. B, only I used it mainly for sounding smart and sensitive when talking to the ladies.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:53 PM
Don't you have a bootstrapping problem? Or is the love of two loving lovers who love each ovver fundamentally unanalyzable into the love one has for the other and the love the other has for the one? Or fundamentally shared? Or maybe the two proto-lovers urge each other on through stages of infatuation to being enamored and so on until they suddenly break through, both at once in a rush of simultaneity, to love the other?
Of course you've already admitted it's a crap theory, so it needn't be addressed. I'd like to reiterate, though, that Tyler is either nuts or self-deceived or something if he really thinks his thesis is true.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:54 PM
60: Yeah, I think that "creepy" feeling is a big part of why I came up with it in the first place. But it's a remarkably good way of short-circuiting that stupid "I love so and so so much, and I'm sure he really loves me . . ." feeling one gets when interested in or dating a pretty inattentive person.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:54 PM
48: after thinking about it, I realize there are too many counterexamples and my theory is insupportable.
But I have found at least anecdotally that oftentimes as your affection for someone increases, their affection seems to decrease proportionally, particularly in youthful heterosexual relationships where "the thrill of the chase" is a very real (and annoying) phenomenon.
But maybe that's just me, and I only like people who are indifferent to me.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:55 PM
Fundamentally shared.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:56 PM
Eh, the first stages of mutual love are as much about constructed fantasies of the other guy as the unrequited kind. Full disclosure: I've been in love with people who've never returned my affections.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 12:56 PM
Cowen's cheat seems to be to just keep the clock running. So, Tia has been in love with people who haven't returned her affections. But is she in love with them now? No? Equilibrium. I've been in love with someone who loved me more, and we broke up, and neither of us loves each other now. Equilibrium. So his thesis seems to be that given enough time, even break-ups end up in an equilibrium.
So the theory is only good insofar as we give sufficient time to it. Of course, this renders it useless for predictions beyond the hindsight kind, especially as the time approaches the heat death of the universe.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:03 PM
Ah, but (so runs the crappy theory), if the first stages are idealized, then part of the eventual love is that the ideals are based in some reality of the other person's character, blah blah the best self theory. And/or the first stages are infatuation, which may eventually grow *into* love, but isn't the same thing.
The fabulous thing about crap theories is that they can be endlessly adjusted. I'm completely devoted to crap theories. Although Tyler's isn't a good crap theory, even though it does allow for endless adjustment, simply because not only is it obviously wishful thinking, but it's easily twisted around to justify really fucked-up behavior, in the "I know you want it, baby" kind of way.
Plus he dismisses the love-for-intrinsic-qualities thing, which is just plain wrong. In fact, I would say the main difference between his (bad) crap theory and my (good) crap theory is that his relies on an idea of love as gratitude (I love you because you love me, and I'm flattered) rather than love as recognition (I love you because I understand and admire who you are). His love theory adjusts over time because it's inherently unstable; mine doesn't, because people may change but, absent major brain damage, their basic characters usually don't.
I stand by this, no matter how stupid it is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:04 PM
67: Clock-running. The over time thing also has the advantage of allowing even for really fucked-up abusive relationships. X loves Y, though Y is dangerously abusive. Clearly Y does not love X; indeed, eventually Y kills X. Does X love Y now? No; X is dead. See? The theory works!
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:07 PM
I don't see why we couldn't love someone while fully understanding that, in fact, they do not reciprocate, or that they possess bad qualities, etc. Esp givin that this: inasmuch as love (should), by definition, involves an accurate picture and real understanding of the other, it would be impossible to truly be in love with someone who was indifferent or hostile to you, seems to rely on "doesn't love me" being something like "indifferent or hostile to me", whereas in fact person A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:08 PM
I think it's probably true that the mutual affection in any non-cursory, stable, and honest relationship will quickly approach symmetry. Examining how these various assumptions routinely fail can be enlightening.
On second thought, I've probably missed some qualifications.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:11 PM
Ah! That's why I said "in love with," as opposed to "love." I can, for instance, love you despite your pedantry and taste in pocket watches; but I couldn't possibly be *in* love with you, because these characteristics are inherently repellent.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:13 PM
A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure
This seems unlikely to me. I suppose it would depend on B's chosen expression of their love, but I think we tend to think that people should not pursue people who don't reciprocate, and would inevitably become annoyed at another's lack of adjustment to our lack of love.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:14 PM
Given that Western discourse on love practically *begins* with the lover/beloved dynamic (Plato, "Phaedrus" ... now THERE is a reading group), Cowen's thesis seems to suffer the common problem of an economist's thinking nothing by a non-economist is worth taking seriously.
Tia, I like CBT, more creative than my own BFT (Bitch From Texas). But my wife coined that for my ex, so I guess it's not really "my own."
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:15 PM
non-cursory, stable, and honest relationship will quickly approach symmetry
"Stable" kind of implies "symmetry," doesn't it? This is, like, a logical fallacy or something. There are philosophers around here somewhere.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:16 PM
Ah! That's why I said "in love with," as opposed to "love." I can, for instance, love you despite your pedantry and taste in pocket watches; but I couldn't possibly be *in* love with you, because these characteristics are inherently repellent.
An entirely factitious distinction.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:16 PM
One of the people I was in love with I was good friends with at the time, so I in fact knew him well and had access to info about his person. The other one I didn't, as it was a five day relationship that triggered the bout of being in love, although we later got together for real, and later still became friends, and honestly, I don't think my from a distance portrait was that much better than the one I eventually got up close. The thing I was responding to from a distance wasn't false, either. Sometimes a lot can be gleaned about a person from a little.
Also, I'm not sure that the gratitude thing, although I wouldn't use that word, isn't a lot of what love is as it gets constructed throughout the relationship. At least in my case, I'm not sure I ever loved Graham for his qualities as much as I loved him for the experience of being with him. His qualities enabled the experience, of course. I imagine if we'd gotten married and had kids, I'd have loved him for being the man who helped and supported me and was father to my children.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:16 PM
72 brings to mind this atrocious lyric. Shit.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:17 PM
I had to look up "factitious." It is impossible for romantic feelings to develop while one is constantly turning to a dictionary.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:18 PM
"Stable" kind of implies "symmetry," doesn't it? This is, like, a logical fallacy or something.
Not to my mind it doesn't.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:19 PM
75: Tia mentioned relations with some relative where she tries to hide her annoyance, and this leads to a relatively stable, non-honest, somewhat cursory relationship. An honest, non-cursory, unstable relationship would, I imagine, be any case of unrequited love.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:19 PM
77: In my old age, I've come around to believing in the whole "love at first sight (or almost)" thing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:20 PM
But "factitious" is a great word! You may think you dislike constantly turning to the dictionary now, but in the long run it's best for you and I only do it 'cause I love you. Now come on over here and gimme some sugar.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:20 PM
truthy : truthiness :: factitious : factiness
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:24 PM
Shit, I'm torn. Pedantry is gross, but condescension and demands are so hottt...
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:24 PM
In 76, "factitious" s/b "subtle"
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:24 PM
"Stable" kind of implies "symmetry," doesn't it? This is, like, a logical fallacy or something.
Not to my mind it doesn't.
Mine neither. Stability just implies resistance to change.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:25 PM
An honest, non-cursory, unstable relationship would, I imagine, be any case of unrequited love.
Well, that seems to imply that the "unstable" gives us the "unrequited," which would confirm my 75, no?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:28 PM
the "unstable" gives us the "unrequited,"
B-but what about Dante, huh? Dante and Beatrice? You're not taking them into account huh?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:31 PM
Well, as
symmetric relationships tend to be less stable over time than symmetric ones, so saying that only stable relationships tend toward symmetry is something like saying only edible food hasn't spoiled yet. But, yeah.Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:31 PM
assymmetric relationships tend to be less stable over time than symmetric ones
I don't see that this is true at all.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:33 PM
It does seem to imply that unrequited -> unstable (which isn't true), which might further imply that stable -> requited (still not true), which certainly doesn't imply that stable -> symmetrical.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:34 PM
92 to 88.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:35 PM
91: Even with all else being equal?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:37 PM
Wasn't Jane Austen's formulation "gratitude and esteem? The implication being there ought to be both.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:39 PM
Would it have been worthwhile, if one,
Starting a disagreement, or trying to start a brawl,
Turned to the dictionary and said,
"That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all."
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:39 PM
"Assymmetric relationships" are those which are based on the size, shape, fitness, etc. of the rear end, I take it?
I thought we were discussing symmetry and asymmetry, stuff like that, but if you want to talk about assy metrics, that's cool too. I think I must have mentioned my friend's friend from Brazil (IIRC) who had devised a complex taxonomy of asses?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:40 PM
What all else? I mean, historically speaking, extremely unequal relationships have often lasted for a very long time; and equality (which I take to be equivalent to "symmetry") is hard to maintain. And how do we define "stable," relationship-wise? Are we talking simply about not getting divorced, or what? Not to mention symmetry. Is a relationship where both partners play traditional roles "by choice," and feel this is fair, symmetrical? I'd say no; a lot of people would say yes.
However, I'll go along with an argument that the most important way to keep a relationship happy is not to correct the other person's grammar.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:41 PM
92: Don't you think that "asymmetrical" is a subset of "unrequited," and therefore we could do the following:
unrequited --> unstable
asymmetrical --> unstable
stable --> symmetrical
Why not?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:41 PM
Wait. "unrequited" is a subset of "asymmetrical," not the other way 'round. Fuck.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:42 PM
98 to 94.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:43 PM
I realized after I posted that the strike wasn't very visible, but the second "s" in "as
symmetric" is indeed striken.Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:43 PM
I know from personal experience, that if you love with a love that is more than love - a love coveted by the winged seraphs of heaven - nothing good will come of it, and all the night tide one of you will find yourself loving the other, asymetrically, by the sea.
Posted by poe | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:46 PM
99: Unrequited is a subset of asymmetrical. Unless you think that love is a binary yes/no thing, in which case unrequited and asymmetrical are just the same. But then you'd be wrong. Anyway, you'd be wrong to say that unrequited → unstable anyway, so.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:47 PM
Anyway, I thought 103 might anyway be SB, but anyway I bet SB wouldn't have anyway misspelled "asymmetrically" anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:48 PM
Well, pdf23ds said it, not me.
But Dante was clearly insane.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:49 PM
82: I knew an old married couple who were in their late 70's who fell in love at first sight. He knew the first day he met her that he wanted to marry her, and he asked her by the end of the week. They've been together ever since. Sappy but true.
73:
A could not love person B while still finding person B's love completely welcome, and liking person B in some measure.
This seems unlikely to me. I suppose it would depend on B's chosen expression of their love, but I think we tend to think that people should not pursue people who don't reciprocate, and would inevitably become annoyed at another's lack of adjustment to our lack of love.
First of all, not all love is romantic love, although Cowen may have been restricting his comments to romantic love, and the issue of pursuit does not loom large when we're talking about other kinds of love.
I also think that various types of unrequited love could be met with genuine appreciation rather than disdain, and in some circumstances the object of love might not even be aware that s/he is loved.
I have an example for the philosophically inclined amongst us. In Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein, Duty of Genius he describes a couple of relationships which might seem to fit with the asymmetry theory. Francis Skinner clearly loved Wittgenstein more than Wittgenstein loved him, though they were romantically involved.
There was also some working class kid named Keith Kirk whom Wittgenstein tutored in physics and mechanics to prepare him for the City and Guilds exams. From Monk's book on pp. 426-427:
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:49 PM
You know, I was reading Just and Unjust Wars and some footnoted source spelled "asymmetric" with two s's. Maybe it's an acceptable variant.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:50 PM
105: So far as I know, I am the only commenter who, when using an author's name, regularly posts a url for a text in the "posted by" field.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:53 PM
108: It's not noted by merriam webster.
And I didn't make that mistake.
Here.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:54 PM
Unrequited love may not be unstable, but I would argue that it is, ultimately, unsustainable. At least for people who are reasonably psychologically healthy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:55 PM
Maybe it's an acceptable variant
Or perhaps, copy editors occasionally fail to catch misspellings.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:56 PM
109: I thought w/d used to do it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:57 PM
I agree with 111. Of course, then unrequited --> unstable only in the same sense that Cowen's symmetry theory is true, which is to say, not.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:58 PM
111: Doesn't the latter require at least a restricted form of the former?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 1:59 PM
Oh sure. But who cares what crazy people do? Aren't we assuming that, by definition, crazy people are incapable of love?
(I'm totally joking. Please no one take offense. I'm on meds, too.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:00 PM
I mean to say, unsustainable is a subset of unstable.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:02 PM
115: Does it? Can't you be in a very stable unrequited situation? And can't you be in an unsustainable love that is, nonetheless, stable? Like, for example, let's say that you're in love with someone who is consistently selfish. You may not be able to sustain that love, but surely your knowledge that this person is always going to be like that is a kind of stability.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:03 PM
I think we can at least say that for John Emerson, love is stable.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:05 PM
you guys got it all wrong:
in the end the loaves you take
are equal to the loaves you bake.
The problem was that Ringo, who refused to cook, was eating everyone's baguettes, and Paul was saying, hey Ringo, do like the little red hen.
Nobody understands the Beatles but me.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:05 PM
Thanks and good night. You've been great.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:05 PM
113: I think you might be right about that, though only he could confirm that.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:06 PM
I think the idea is that when you cease to sustain the love, there goes your stability, because it once was there, now it's gone, and is not stable.
But this requires a very long view of stability.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:06 PM
I'm thinking of stable as a synonym for homeostatic, and if something's unsustainable it can't be homeostatic.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:11 PM
Actually I think it's that when the man ceases to sustain "the love," his stability goes, and well, then the relationship is over. IYKWIM. AITYD.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:12 PM
. You may not be able to sustain that love, but surely your knowledge that this person is always going to be like that is a kind of stability.
Don't understand that.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:12 PM
I think we can at least say that for John Emerson, love is stable.
Heheheheh. See also.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:13 PM
But if the man can "sustain love" for over 4 hours, call a doctor.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:13 PM
126: For instance, Tim. I know that you are always going to be just wrong on so many things. My knowledge of this is stable. I also know that I will therefore be unable to sustain affection for you for more than a short while, because eventually you will be wrong about something and it will annoy me. My affection for you is therefore unsustainable, although it is stable in the sense that, during the short time in which I feel it, it takes into account your incredible wrongness on most issues.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:15 PM
I'm thinking of stable as a synonym for homeostatic, and if something's unsustainable it can't be homeostatic.
Are you saying straight love is unstable?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:15 PM
My own Crap Theory on this matter (which I attribute to The Bridge of San Luis Rey) is The Unsymmetry Thesis. Namely that there is no such thing as a symmetric relationship between people. Even if the difference is slight, there's the person who cares more and the person who cares less. The only question is which person is which. It's depressing, and not terribly acurate, but it's certainly better than Tyler's theory.
Posted by Unfoggatarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:15 PM
Woo-hoo! I coaxed a chuckle from B-Wo!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:16 PM
Also, to paraphrase those shirts that seem to pop up periodically on campuses, "I agree with 23."
Posted by Unfoggatarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:17 PM
126: For instance, Tim. I know that you are always going to be just wrong on so many things. My knowledge of this is stable. I also know that I will therefore be unable to sustain affection for you for more than a short while, because eventually you will be wrong about something and it will annoy me. My affection for you is therefore unsustainable, although it is stable in the sense that, during the short time in which I feel it, it takes into account your incredible wrongness on most issues.
Why don't you just say it's sustainable but bumpy? There are some days when the sustaining doesn't happen. Tim has uttered something disastrously wrong. But then you know that's a part of him, so you know that you'll be back to feeling affection again in a day or two. Sounds totally sustainable.
"Sustainable" doesn't mean "continuously always sustainable with no gaps ever pinkyswear".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:18 PM
128: Serious question: that's only with teh Viagra, right? Or is four hours of sustained "love" inherently dangerous?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:22 PM
"pinkyswear" s/b "pinky's honor".
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:22 PM
No, I didn't mean bumpy and back to feeling affection. I meant that at some point the temporary affection I feel will evaporate entirely, and I'll revert to sustainable dislike.
Anyway, I'm sorry to say that Tim has probably gotten past the dislike thing for me and probably is sustainably bumpy nowadays. I'll have to find someone else to be constantly irritated by.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:22 PM
You're going soft, B.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:23 PM
I'd love to constantly irritate you, IYKWIM.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:23 PM
134: Well, priaprism is painful and dangerous, yeah. But I dunno if four hours is the cutoff point between "damn!" and "uh oh" or not. It's well after the cutoff point for whining and cajoling, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:24 PM
138: Shh, tell no one. It's very important to maintain my he-man credibility.
139: Oh, no worries.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 2:26 PM
If feelings were symmetrical, you'd have a lot more machete duels. But it's always just one partner with the machete.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 7:18 PM
La Rochefoucauld said that there's always one partner who loves the other one more, and that the less-loving partner will always zing the more-loving partner at the worst possible moment.
But he said it aphoristically and neatly.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 7:20 PM
Tyger tyger burning bright...
Posted by William Blake | Link to this comment | 06- 7-06 11:19 PM
Nonono Bill, we're talking about symmetree, not symmetrye.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 06- 8-06 5:59 AM