= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Epictetus 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?
It depends on how broadly you view "transactional". I highly doubt the original poster intended it to mean any relationship where both parties derive some benefit. The context was the question of whether to buy the services of a prostitute, and the poster appeared to be distinguishing sex for money from each party having sex for pleasure.
In light of that, suppose we begin with a narrower view and say that a transaction requires each party to exchange some kind of valuable commodity or render a service, then much friendly interaction ceases to be transactional. In general, allotting a certain time period for fun activities is a trade-off you make with yourself. If that time happens to be spent with friends who are all there to have a good time, then no one is really engaging in this kind of transaction with anyone else. Everyone benefits, but there's no real exchange of valuables.
Under this view, a transactional approach to a relationship would be one where every interaction is viewed as an exchange. Consider the gold-digger approach, for example.
I think this approach gives a context where the original statement makes a lot more sense. I'm sure one can find other interpretations of "transactional" that also work.