All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
16:09
1566 The Logic of Real Time Relationships Part 1 - Freedomain Radio

An interesting question about the degree of rigorous detail required in a book about relationships.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, hey everybody, it's Steph.
There's a sentence. It's interesting.
There's a sentence that seems to be giving some people, not many, but some, a certain amount of trouble in real-time relationships.
And the question is around the logic of the sentence.
Is it two? Two sentences.
And I will read it to you, and then I will act as if somebody had asked me what I meant and what my purpose was in writing it and what I meant by it, just because I think that's a more fruitful way to approach these things, but let's pretend that that's what did happen.
So here are the two sentences.
If Jennifer has to constantly nag Vince to meet her needs, then clearly she believes that he does not voluntarily want to meet her needs in the first place.
He does not respect what she wants or does not care that she wants it.
Either way, he is treating her entirely disrespectfully.
And there's some question around, is this a false dilemma?
Are there logical problems with this statement?
And I'll tell you what I meant in writing it, and hopefully that will make some sense to you.
And, of course, if you want to know more, you can just let me know.
Now, I think, first of all, you have to understand what nagging is.
And if you've never experienced it, then good for you.
You probably could write a better book than RTR. But if you have experienced nagging, there are a few conditions that are required for nagging to occur.
And here, I use the word constantly, right?
Now, nagging is a repetition.
And if you're constantly nagging, it means you're repeating a repetition, which means it's pretty consuming in a relationship.
I didn't say nag him once.
I didn't say occasionally nag him.
I said constantly nag him.
So this has become a sort of all-consuming pattern or habit within the relationship.
Because nagging is repetitive and constantly is repetitive, then she's constantly nagging him about a variety of topics.
And of course, it's becoming all-consuming, as is the example from the movie The Breakup that is cited in the book.
Now, nagging requires that the person who is doing the nagging, in this case Jennifer, has made a request of Vince.
And he has agreed to do it.
And that's very, very important.
Nagging is that he has agreed to do it.
Right, so to take a sort of parallel example, if you are a mom and your teenage son is, you know, to take a cliche, it's slouching on the couch and it's garbage night and his chore, which he has previously agreed to do, right, his chore, his weekly chore is to take out the garbage.
And he's forgotten a bunch of times and it's been a big hassle and a problem and so she wants to go to bed and she wants to make sure he's going to remember to do the garbage and he's forgotten a bunch of times.
So she has to keep saying, will you go do the garbage?
Will you do garbage? And he's like, in a minute, in a minute, right?
Now, that is nagging and it's because he's previously agreed to do it.
He says he's going to do it in a minute and he keeps breaking his vow, his promise, his commitment.
And that is why nagging is so repetitive.
So, for instance, to compare that...
Imagine that the same sort of mom-son combo that the son sat down and said, listen, I am going to rake the leaves and mow the lawn, but I don't want to do the garbage anymore.
And the father says, okay, great.
I hate doing the lawn and raking the leaves, so I will do the garbage and you will do the lawn.
And the mom is there and agrees that this is a good thing and blah, blah, blah.
Well, clearly it would make no sense for the mother to nag the son about the garbage because there's been a family agreement, which everybody has voluntarily accepted, that the son is no longer going to take out the garbage.
So the mom clearly is not going to nag him.
Or if she says, take out the garbage, she says, no, no, no, I just raked the lawn.
It's dad's job to take out the garbage.
The mom is not going to come back in five minutes and say, take out the garbage, right?
I mean, clearly. I mean, unless she's insane and I'm not going to write a book.
On rational approaches to relationships that deals with insane people, because that would be insane.
Obviously, that's a basic presupposition of somewhat cognitive functioning.
I think that's really, really important.
You don't write a book on jogging and then say at the beginning, this book on jogging does not apply to people with no legs, because that's just kind of understood.
Anybody who doesn't understand that It's just nitpicking to avoid some other thing, right?
So, if everybody in the family agrees that the son is no longer going to do the garbage, then the mom is no longer going to nag him to do the garbage.
If even in the moment the son says, you know, nuts to your asthma, mom, I'm not going to do the garbage and blah, blah, blah, right?
I'm not going to do the garbage.
I'm never going to do the garbage again.
Then she's not going to come in and say, listen, do the garbage, right?
She may get mad at him about refusing to do it, but she's not going to keep nagging because he's withdrawn his consent.
Nagging occurs when we agree to do something and then fail again.
To fulfill it and also fail to withdraw the agreement, right?
So we commit to do something and we neither deliver it nor do we withdraw it, right?
So when I ordered a video camera and it broke from eBay, I emailed the guy a bunch of times because it broke within the seven days.
He was supposed to give me a refund. And he did not respond to me, so I kept emailing.
Because he'd made a commitment.
Now, if you email me back and said, haha, sucks to be you, there's no way I'm going to give you a refund.
I'm just in it to scam your money and I shipped you crap.
Haha, I got your money, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not going to email him again and ask for a refund because he's withdrawn even his commitment after the fact.
I'd complain in some other fashion.
But it's when somebody has made a commitment to you.
And has failed in that commitment a number of times.
We don't generally tend to nag the first time there's a problem, only if the son has never forgotten to take out the garbage ever, then the mom is not going to nag him, even if she does it sort of at midnight or whatever, right?
So, there has to have been a commitment, there has to have been a series of failures, and there has to be usually some kind of passive aggression that is occurring, as in I'll do it in a minute, you know, I'll do it in a minute, which is, you know, kind of a rude way to deal with your commitments in my opinion, but I think that's, to me, that's nagging.
So there has to be a bunch of things that are set up in order for nagging to occur.
And so for nagging to occur, and this is exactly what's going on in the movie, right?
That he's constantly failing to meet his commitments to his girlfriend, and this has become an all-consuming issue, and so this is a big problem.
So, if Jennifer has to constantly nag Vince to meet her needs, then clearly she believes that he does not voluntarily want to meet her needs in the first place.
I mean, to me, that's just two ways of stating the same thing, right?
That's just two ways of stating the same thing.
So, for instance, if you've been really interested in some woman and you've been flirting with her for months and you finally have screwed up the courage to ask her out and she asks out and you've been looking forward to the evening all week, And, you know, you dress to the nines and you slap on your old spice and so on.
Nobody has to nag you to go and meet the girl, right?
Nobody has to nag you to go meet this woman.
In fact, you would view anyone who got in the way of you meeting this woman as somebody you would have a big problem with, right?
So, when you want to do something, nobody needs to nag you, right?
You don't need to nag children to eat their candy at Halloween, right?
You just don't need to nag them to do that.
You don't need to nag children to open their presents at Christmas.
Obviously, they want to do that of their own accord.
You don't need to nag them.
Nagging occurs because somebody has made a commitment, is failing to meet that commitment, and it's not withdrawing the commitment.
So they said, I'm going to take out the garbage, and they're neither taking out the garbage nor refusing to take out the garbage, so you're left in a kind of limbo.
That is what triggers nagging.
It's the null zone. And so, when somebody doesn't voluntarily want to do something, then of course, you know, not of course, but a lot of people will end up nagging.
But nagging, by its very definition, is an acceptance of the fact that somebody does not want to voluntarily do something.
Because if they wanted to voluntarily do something, It already would have been done.
Because he would have a very strong incentive to do it, he would voluntarily want to do it.
So, his mother wouldn't need to nag him to continue to take out the garbage because he would get a million dollars if he did it in the next 10 minutes.
So, he would be motivated to do it, right?
So, clearly, if somebody is nagging, if Jennifer is nagging Vince, it's because she clearly understands.
He does not want to voluntarily meet her needs in the first place.
Voluntarily, right? Because, obviously.
I mean, I guess I don't need to repeat the argument, I'm sure.
Now, a part of where the confusion may arise is that here, I continue on in the book to say, he does not respect what she wants or does not take care that she wants it.
Either way, he's treating her entirely disrespectfully.
Now, this can be taken in two ways.
This can be taken as an objective statement or it can be taken as a continuance.
Of her perception, right?
Then clearly she believes that he does not want to voluntarily meet her needs in the first place.
She believes that. I'm not saying it as an objective fact.
I'm saying she believes that. If you nag someone, it's because you don't believe that they want to voluntarily meet your needs in the first place.
That's almost a tautology.
It's just by definition. He does not respect what she wants.
This is her perception. She believes.
I don't suddenly say, objectively, he does not respect what she wants.
I'm saying she believes.
He does not want to voluntarily meet her needs in the first place.
He does not respect what she wants or does not care that she wants it.
Either way, he's treating her entirely disrespectfully.
That is her perception.
Now, I could have gone on to say, she also perceives...
I mean, to me, I thought it was because I don't switch tenses or I don't switch the structure.
So, to me, it's a continuance of her experience.
Now, if somebody makes a commitment to do something for you, and then neither, and repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly makes commitments, makes commitments, makes commitments, makes commitments, and you plan your life accordingly, like in the movie, he didn't pick up a dozen lemons, and so she arranged her life so that she didn't pick up the dozen lemons, so she's actually worse off than if he hadn't made the commitment.
This is what's so problematic about people who make commitments and don't follow through, is that you're actually worse off than if they hadn't made the commitments.
Because she desperately wants a dozen lemons for her dinner party.
Now, if he'd have said, I'm not going to buy your lemons, they may have had a problem, but at least she would have made arrangements to get the lemons in some other fashion, in some other way.
She would have gotten up early, or she would have picked them up on the way home or something.
But because he made the commitment and then did not pick up the lemons, then she is actually out lemons, which she wouldn't have been out if he hadn't.
And he's perfectly aware of this.
I mean, of course, right? I mean, it would be crazy to state otherwise.
So I think that's really important.
So her perception is that if this is repeatedly occurring, if he is repeatedly making commitments that make her life more difficult because he won't fulfill them and yet also won't withdraw the commitment and so she ends up never knowing whether it's going to happen or not, but because I've said constantly nagging, it means that it's a perpetual, deep-seated, repetitive issue that takes up a huge amount of time in the relationship.
Then clearly what's occurring is he's not respecting her need for what?
What is he not respecting her need for?
Well, he's not respecting her need for honesty.
He's not respecting her need for honesty.
Because if he says, I'm not going to do it, then she can make other arrangements or she can decide whether she wants to be in the relationship or not in the relationship.
So the problem with nagging, the reason that nagging arises is because people lie.
They make commitments and then they make excuses.
Or they don't accept responsibility and this becomes a repetitive issue.
They don't say the truth of the situation, right?
Which is, well, I don't know.
I might be able to get to it.
I might not. I don't really know, but I don't really care about it.
I think that the lemons are stupid and I think it's ridiculous and math astuity for you to need these things.
Let's forget about it, right?
If they had that negotiation upfront, that would be a way at least of treating her with some sort of respect of giving her the honesty.
But if after he makes the commitment to get the lemons and then fails to pick up the lemons and fails to take responsibility and then calls it stupid and obsessive and who cares and it's anal and blah, blah, blah, well, of course he's not respecting what she wants, right?
Because nagging means the reason that you end up nagging is because the person puts you down when they fail you, right?
And that's exactly what happens in the movie.
That's exactly what's cited in the book.
So, of course, he doesn't respect what she wants.
He says that very clearly.
It's a stupid thing. Who cares about these stupid lemons?
They're ridiculous. It doesn't matter.
It's stupid, right? So, of course, he doesn't respect what she wants or doesn't care that she wants it.
But, you see, he doesn't say that up front because if he says up front, listen, I don't respect your needs.
I don't respect your preferences.
I don't respect what you want.
Or if he says, I have no interest in what you want, I don't care about it, I'm never going to fulfill it, or if I do, it's going to be on a whim of mine, right?
He's just not being honest.
He's making commitments, he's breaking commitments, and he's refusing to accept responsibility, and he's attacking her and putting her down to boot.
And there's just no conceivable way that anybody is going to perceive someone who makes commitments, who fails regularly in those commitments, who avoids responsibility and then blames that person.
There's no way that somebody is going to experience that as respectful.
There's just no conceivable way that somebody is going to perceive that as respectful.
And the disrespect is the falsehood.
It's the lying that results in the nagging.
So the kid who says, I'll take out the garbage in a minute.
Well, a minute goes by, he hasn't taken out the garbage.
And even if we say it's colloquial and it's 10 minutes or whatever, he still hasn't done it.
He's lying. And when you lie to people, you are not treating them respectfully.
You are not treating them respectfully.
You don't get to say, yes, I will meet your needs because I respect you and think that's important.
And then when you don't meet someone's needs, you don't get to then say, those needs are stupid.
And I don't care, and it's unimportant, and who cares?
It doesn't matter, right? Because that's negotiating after the fact.
That's making a commitment based on a respect for somebody, and then, because you don't make a commitment unless there's some level of respect for somebody, right?
And then when you fail in that commitment to withdraw and to blame, that's what is all involved in the word nagging.
And there's no way that somebody who regularly lies to you and belittles your needs is going to be experienced by you as treating you respectfully.
It is entirely disrespectful to make commitments to someone and then to continually fail them and then blame that person, which is, again, exactly what was quoted in the scene from the movie.
That is in the book Real-Time Relationships, and that is a pretty constant thing.
So, it really comes down to integrity.
It comes down to integrity.
If you make a commitment to someone, you owe them either the fulfillment of that commitment or the explicit withdrawal of that commitment.
And if you fail to meet that commitment, then you owe them an apology.
You don't get to put people down when you fail them, because that is treating them entirely disrespectfully.
And that's the perspective that I was coming from in the book.
Now, I know that that's a lot to pull out of two sentences, but that's what's all there, right?
I mean, that's what nagging is.
Constant nagging means that it's become a chronic problem in the relationship.
And you can't lie to people about commitments.
You can't put them down after the fact.
You can't avoid responsibility.
You can't switch your story when you fail people and say that their needs are no longer important.
You can't do that and be perceived as treating those people respectfully by those people.
You simply can't do that.
You can't lie to people and fail them repeatedly and make their lives more difficult and awkward and embarrassing and confusing.
And be perceived as treating them respectfully.
I mean, it just can't occur.
So that's the logic of these two particular sentences.
I mean, we could go more into the other sentences that are quoted.
They all have, I think, pretty good explanations and understandings behind them.
But that's just a sort of example of, you know, if somebody had said, hey, you know, what's the purpose of this?
That would be something that would be more fun to respond to and to talk about.
Rather than, oh, the book's just wrong.
I mean, to me, that's a kind of immature way to approach questioning.
And of course, it's completely against the idea of RTR, which is to be curious and ask questions rather than to inflict conclusions.
Anyway, I hope that this is helpful.
I don't want to get into all these other sentences because it's not that much fun to sort of battle back against this kind of stuff.
But I just sort of wanted to point out with these two sentences that people seem to be having particular problems with, There are good reasons behind what is written.
▲
Export Selection