= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open Thread, Apr. 13 - Apr. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (319)
In the previous Open Thread, the following claim was made:
This kind of attitude seems to be widespread, but it doesn't ring true to me. Most obviously, I have a transactional attitude towards my relationship with Tesco; this doesn't cause me anxiety that Tesco feels the same, or worry that I'm not getting a better deal. If Sainsbury's offers me a sufficiently better deal, I won't worry, I'll just switch my weekly shop.
But more deeply, I have a transactional attitude towards my relationship with my fiancee. I'm with her because she makes me happy, and because I enjoy spending time with her, and because she seems like a good investment. And I do the same for her. It's a transaction. Now, there is a difference between my attitude to her and my attitude to Tesco, in that I have created a lot of relationship capital with her, so I wouldn't leave her just because of a seemingly slightly better option elsewhere, as I would with Tesco. But that just means it's a long-term transaction. Similarly, I wouldn't change my job as easily as my supermarket, but my relationship with my employer (not even a human being!) is definitely transactional.
It seems to me that every relationship, whether romantic, friendly, business, or whatever else, is, at bottom, transactional; the question is always "What do I get out of it?" It doesn't have to be money, and it doesn't have to be an immediate pay-off, but if it's not there then why are you wasting your time?
Am I missing the point here? Is anyone able to defend the idea that you shouldn't look at relationships in a transactional way?
What specifically is considered a transaction. Let's assume that I am already giving something to the other person. Does it only count as a "transaction" when the other person actively gives something back to me... or is it enough if I for example derive pleasure from helping this specific person, even if the other person does not actively give me anything, even if maybe they are not even aware that I did something for them?
In other words "receiving something in return" does not necessarily imply "the other person paid back somehow". (I could be rewarded by a third party, or by a part of my own mind.) Which one are we talking about?
I agree that the "something in return" doesn't have to be from the other person in the relationship. For example, a doctor attending a patient is employed by the hospital, not the patient; she gets nothing from him. Still, it makes sense to view the way they relate to each other as transactional. The patient wants to get well, the doctor wants to get paid.
I agree that people can derive pleasure from helping a specific person. But it's not normally the whole story. What they also want is expressions of gratitude, that person's company, etc. For example, your parents may want to help you, but if you never say thank you, call them or see them, they won't be inclined to help you nearly so much. Human beings are social animals. The "helping" is not the whole, or even the majority, of the story.
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/m1p/open_thread_apr_13_apr_19_2015/c9eo