Couple of new thoughts from a psychology channel

[inbloomer]

This channel came up in my YouTube recommendations. It definitely has some overlap with studies DNL has cited in the past. I’m not giving any strong view either way on the overall channel, but there were a couple of points in recent videos I thought worth mentioning:

In this video, https://youtu.be/WyKFHd7cSaU she talks about splitting intimacy of communication into a 10-point scale, with Level 1 being the most low-risk comments about the weather or whatever and Level 10 being highly personal disclosures. What I thought w as the most interesting point is that often, people who have been reciprocating enthusiastically up to Level 6 will go funny and stop reciprocating at Level 7-8. The reason, she suggests, is that people often have quite binary thinking: if they don’t totally trust someone up to Level 10, they aren’t comfortable going even to Level 7-9.

I’d say that matches my own experience, with lots of connections that initially appeared really promising but then went cold, seemingly for no real reason. In terms of what DNL overestimates, I’ve always felt he was too confident that you could shoot straight up to the high levels of intimacy, and if not reciprocated bring it straight back down without any problems.

In this video https://youtu.be/XtRPrpy1sfo she covers lots of research around what people say they want from a partner. Basically, everyone lists exactly the same qualities: trustworthy, kind, supportive. What that really means is “I’m scared of getting hurt, so I want someone who won’t challenge any of my beliefs or ways of doing things”. But in practice, if you really like someone or have otherwise decided this is the horse you’re going to back, you will accept all kinds of ways in which they don’t match your ideal – and not even accept with a sigh but actively convince yourself that they’re very nice or super-hot or whatever, even though a neutral observer might not agree.

[Werel]

I didn’t watch the videos, so just responding to your rendition of the contents, but…

What I thought w as the most interesting point is that often, people who have been reciprocating enthusiastically up to Level 6 will go funny and stop reciprocating at Level 7-8. The reason, she suggests, is that people often have quite binary thinking: if they don’t totally trust someone up to Level 10, they aren’t comfortable going even to Level 7-9.

That’s an interesting way of framing it, and I wonder if the cutoff point around roughly level 7 is when you get into stuff that could really hurt you if used against you. There’s a certain level of personal disclosure that does build closeness without significant risk to the discloser, and past that, it gets into “you could hurt me either a bit (at level 7) or wreck me (at level 10)” territory. Maybe it’s less binary, and more about individual risk tolerance, and the amount of trust that’s been established up to that point?

In this video https://youtu.be/XtRPrpy1sfo she covers lots of research around what people say they want from a partner. Basically, everyone lists exactly the same qualities: trustworthy, kind, supportive. What that really means is “I’m scared of getting hurt, so I want someone who won’t challenge any of my beliefs or ways of doing things”.

Hey, I’m a cynic, but this seems a bit too reductive and misanthropic even for me. Nobody likes getting hurt, but I don’t think that’s the primary motive for wanting a partner who’s trustworthy, kind, and supportive. True, those things all make getting hurt less likely, but the salient part of those traits IMO is that they make day-to-day life better, not just that they make the really bad parts of life rarer. Kindness is a plus to every interaction instead of a shield against bad interactions. And trustworthiness makes it possible to go to level 7-10 without feeling unsafe (or less unsafe, anyway), and that’s how deep intimacy gets built.

I’m also kind of lost on how “supportive” translates to “won’t challenge any of my beliefs or ways of doing things” - sure, lots of people probably want that kind of unquestioning deference and call it “supportiveness”, but is this psychologist saying that’s the real underlying motive to wanting a supportive partner?

[inbloomer]

Yes, I'd say Level 6 is the limit of what I'd put in an email - where, if it got forwarded to the wrong person, it would be a bit embarrassing but not a disaster.

The psychologist wasn't slating the trustworthy/kind/supportive triad, she just noted that to her, it had a whiff of caring about self-protection more than anything else. In my experience, someone who isn't at all unsafe or threatening but nonetheless is constantly questioning everything you do - "why do you get up at this time? Why do you have that for breakfast? Why don't you do what I do?" does set you right on edge.

[Werel]

The psychologist wasn't slating the trustworthy/kind/supportive triad, she just noted that to her, it had a whiff of caring about self-protection more than anything else. In my experience, someone who isn't at all unsafe or threatening but nonetheless is constantly questioning everything you do - "why do you get up at this time? Why do you have that for breakfast? Why don't you do what I do?" does set you right on edge.

Ahh, I guess that's the disconnect for me: I wouldn't call someone who doesn't question my every action "supportive," I'd call them "meeting the bare minimum of not being a giant asshole". Because it is low-key threatening to question everything someone does - it says "I don't respect your autonomy or trust your judgment even a little," and there's the implied (possible) threat "...therefore I will take over your decision-making and impinge on your autonomy".

[Sponsored content]