You must log in or register to comment.
Many people apparently loving this, I see it as a red flag. She’s manipulative and I’d second guess every action she’d take from the day I noticed it
I personally struggle to see the difference between regular social interaction and manipulation. Do you have a sense on where that lies for you?
For example, due to being autistic, I struggle with making eye contact, but I recognise that most neurotypical people find that important for feeling connected to their conversation partner, so I often try to make eye contact during conversation. If I see someone has styled their hair in a way that shows they’ve put a lot of effort into it, I will often compliment them, even if I only feel neutral about it. I baked a cake for a friend when she finished her exams, because I know that physical gestures like this mean a lot to her (especially if it’s a surprise); I wanted to make her happy, but it wasn’t purely altruistic — ultimately, making the cake was an indirect way of making myself happier.
Another example is how, when speaking to someone struggling with something, my instinct is to go into problem solving mode and try to help. However, I’ve learned that some people much prefer space to be sad, and so saying things like “that sounds so frustrating” or “I can see why you’re so angry, it’s an unfair situation” lands better. It always feels weird and manipulative to do this, because the things I say feel so trite and meaningless. But it seems to really help, and I’ve had to just embrace the fact that people use different things to cope than I do. It does feel weird though, and if these aren’t examples of bad manipulation, then I don’t know where that line would be
This reads like you didn’t even read the post, and you’re projecting your negative experience with your ex onto it for some reason. Yeah, abuse isn’t cool, but that’s not what this is.
I did read the post and yes, I have neen in abusive situations before. There is a reason why its an AITA question and yes, she is the asshole.
Just because apparently loads of people have a slave fetish here doesn’t mean that it’s not manipulative.
The point is that just because it’s manipulative, that doesn’t make it abuse.
I lucked out, I have someone to train me with snacks too uwu
If THAT is what counts as “being treated like a dog”, woof woof!
🦴
I want this in my life so badly 😮💨
You could just buy peanut m&ms
That’s not the same, and you know it
Dear diary,
Do people think I don’t know I’m joking? It’s one of life’s hidden mysteries to me, like the Fermi paradox or what the Reese’s panties are there for, or why I like it so much. Why don’t more candies dress up for the occasion?
Tell me more about Reese’s panties…
I knew you were joking. What I said is technically true, but it’s also a funny response to what you said
Woof
I’m gonna run away from home and start barking at people.
Maybe I’ll get lucky, either way I’ll be taken care of.
This is probably a me thing, but if I were to catch on to someone doing this I might start wondering at some hidden intent behind everything they do
Next thing you know they’re hiding deworming pills in your treats. 😂
Sweet, now I can continue eating rare pork without worrying!
This. ^
Most of the time, you can’t tell the persons intentions from that position. I hope for the guy’s sake the woman is genuine about helping him. Though her method is fucked.
I mean, it doesn’t say that she forces him to eat it from her hand or anything.
Even if the intent is good it is still manipulation without consent.
That’s true yeah. Yeah the more I think about the situation, the nastier it gets. The training could mess someone up.
Hey if it works out works. She is an asshole for not using proper grammar and punctuation though.
No sex or kinkiness needed. Just take me home, animals are treated better than humans ;_;
Animals deserve it more
It’s not a zero-sum.
People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.
The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.
It’s also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, “oh shit, (s)he caught on!” will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.
A: “Ok, what’s with the M&Ms?”
B: “You’ve noticed then. :)”
A: “…”
B: “I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better.”
A: “… You’ve been conditioning me?!?”
B: “Yes, don’t you like the improvement?”
A “… yes, but I’m not sure I should…”
B: “M&M?”
You could also be even more cautious: “I noticed that they cheer you up, so I try to have them on hand for when you’re feeling down.” No mention of conditioning, wholesome, hard to argue against.
We constantly condition each other all the time. It’s a part of human interaction. We don’t usually do it consciously, but it’s conditioning nonetheless. Couples will subtly condition their behavior to be more in tune with each other.
Consider a simple example. Imagine a you’re in a couple, and you just moved in together. You’re both used to living alone. You’re used to flicking on the bedroom light as you walk into the bedroom before bed to prepare for bed. Unfortunately your partner tends to go to sleep before you. You wake them up a few times by accident, and they understandably grumble. You feel bad about it, as you care about them and don’t want to wake them up. You wince the next day when you see how tired they seem. In time, you stop flicking the light on before you enter the room. Your partner’s actions have conditioned you to not turn the light on. Your partner conditioned you without even intending to. We condition each other constantly. We observe what effect our behavior has on others, and we adjust our own behavior accordingly. We usually just don’t refer to it as “conditioning,” as that tends to have a nefarious connotation.
All true, but it isn’t always best to lead with that. It can provoke an emotional response that might not be productive.
It also hides the conditioning aspect. We hide things when we consider them negative. If they are asking, they have potentially noticed a lot more. If you hide it, you believe it was a bad thing you were doing, and they will react VERY strongly to you doing it.
By being upfront it will derail their train of thought on the matter. I personally used this a few times in my youth. It pulls the teeth of an argument quickly.
Here it is basically acknowledging what you have been doing, while defusing the various “ah ha!” reveals and got-yas they had mentally planned. At that point they have to actually think, rather than just react according to the script they built in their head. Once they are thinking, it’s a lot easier to communicate properly.
I’m very much a “direct communication” kinda person but even I know that timing is important. True it took learning it and that was certainly an experience but it happened.
If the person is feeling vulnerable and a little worried you’re manipulating them and you dive straight in with a scientific, emotionless reduction of “choco make boyo happy” then you’ll probably scare them. You’re excited about this thing and have had a lot of time to explore it but they haven’t had such time to be more comfortable with that kind of wording. You don’t want to derail their argument, that really only protects you and actually puts you back in hiding a negative aspect and that person now feels possibly even more confused and angry. They were probably hoping that it was just a mistake or that you were being nice, which you probably were, and now you’ve taken their “best case scenario” and told them straight-faced that you were consciously manipulating them.
After they feel better, after they’ve had some time to sit with it, sure maybe, but in the moment it’s good to soften it a little.
That feels very Abed
Especially the end line
Just squirt him with the water bottle if he starts asking questions like this.
Negative reinforcement should be HIGHLY limited. It can cause unforeseen knock on effects. Any negative reinforcement should be highly targeted, without triggering a fight or flight response. It should also be accompanied by clear instructions for how to correct it. This applies to both humans and pets.
It’s quite likely that most of the negative traits in the OP were caused by an attempt at negative reinforcement.
Okay, this is just turning into the episode of TBBT where Sheldon is conditioning Penny and sprays Leonard with water and the whole gang looks up the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
sounds like they treat their partner better than most people do, honestly.
Yeah I think that’s pretty gross. This person stated that the person they are dating is emotionally unavailable and has potentially been abused as a child. But because they find them pretty, they decided to manipulate a person like they manipulate animals for selfish purposes. (Both are bad!) Their partner probably needs therapy not to be emotionally manipulated by their partner.
Have a M&M
I’m vegan
I am asking this more out of curiosity than criticism, but how would you deal with someone who is emotionally unavailable, shows signs of childhood abuse, but treats you pretty fairly?
Honesty?
Not like a dog?
Be there for them and try to convince them to get professional therapy, maybe? And not Jedi mindtrick them using food out of whatever mood you don’t like that they’re in.
Some people take great offense when you don’t pretend humans have somehow evolved beyond the animal kingdom. Yes, we are still animals, and much of what works for them still works on us.
It’s odd, sweet, I think. She’s doing her best in the way she knows best
Has hammer, sees only nails.
The way she contextualises it is a bit odd, but the actual thing isn’t that bad. It’s just accommodating him, being aware of his particulars, and helping him over his issues. The gift of a single M&M is unusual, but giving your partner something nice isn’t strange. People do similar things all the time in relationships, it’s just not thought of as training.
Biggest issue is her framing it that way, because people might either get the wrong idea, or give the wrong idea. Saying she’s training him like a dog gives the idea of a lead, like with an actual dog.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of people react like the treats are indignifying, as if positive and negative reinforcement only happen in a lab or something.
Pretty sure it’s the lack of consent of the intent that is undignified. Just like many woman prefer to not have their date pay for their meal because it sets the implication that they have to pay via other ways and they didn’t consent to this.
Okay, I asked somebody else, maybe you can help.
Consent to what? What is he supposed to be consenting to? That she thinks thoughts in her head? M&M’s are not actually magic, he does not have to be any happier if he doesn’t want to.
Like, let’s look at another act of subtle coercion: the advertising industry. An ad agency’s entire job is to either directly or indirectly prime and condition you into believing certain things about whatever it is they’re selling.
Maybe they want you to believe it’s a good product. Maybe they want you to believe that Apple is “clean” and “cool” and “for creatives.” Maybe they want you to believe that protesters are crazed lunatics throwing firebombs and flipping cars all the time.
And, while this is deliberate manipulation, I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they didn’t consent to it. If a salesman is trying to coerce you into something, your consent is the contract you sign.
And likewise, I don’t see how this guy isn’t consenting to M&M’s making him happier when they either did or did not do that in the first place.
Yeah, the single m&m is a little weird but how is it really different than seeing someone in a bag mood and telling them a joke or something to lift their spirits?
People wouldn’t blink twice if you’d brought your partner some chocolate, or lunch because they were having a bad day.
The biggest thing for me is that she’s eroding his emotional sovereignty. She’s taking covert actions to modulate and decide his mood for him.
Sometimes, when I’m feeling down, I just want to feel that and get through on my own. But she’s deciding which of his moods isn’t appropriate and is changing his behaviour. If this were out in the open, he would be able to accept or refuse her attempts to cheer him up or divert him. But he (presumably) doesn’t even know it’s happening. That’s not cool.
It sounds fine because it’s worded like she’s helping him but she’s still taking away his autonomy. Just bring it out in the open: “hey, I’ve noticed, when you’re sad or stressed, peanut M&Ms cheer you up. Would you like me to keep some on-hand?” With that you, you’ve alerted them to behaviours about themself and got their consent to “help” them.
If that’s the timbre of their interactions, I’ve got no qualms. But setting the context as “I train abused dogs” brings the mental image to one step above “hiding medicine in a dog treat.”
I appreciate your comment.
I’ve actually talked to my fiance about things like this, because I noticed that I was ‘handling’ him, and I felt like it was demeaning to him. Luckily for me, he considered what I said and informed me that he likes that.
Consent makes the difference!
Probably helps that I’m used to disturbed and abused humans, too…
Yeah, that’s perfect! You asked and he said okay. You treated him like an adult and an equal and are now actively helping him, instead of deciding for him how he should grow/change.
