MMX2010 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I read this article from therawness.com about two months ago, and its arguments have been strongly resonating in me ever since. http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-means/ --------------------------------------------------- The most important paragraphs are as follows: Two people can engage in an action that seems identical on the surface and in the short run but for each person has wildly different consequences and implications depending on whether that person views the action as a means to an end or an end itself, with no higher goal in sight. Conflicts arise when people think they’re dealing with one type of motivation for the action when they’re actually dealing with the other. These misunderstandings lead to much frustration. Here are some examples: A woman regularly has sex with a man because she wants a permanent monogamous relationship. For her the sex is a means to an end. He is only interested in the sex for its own sake, making it an end in and of itself for him.A man tolerates being sexually or emotionally teased by a woman because he wants sex and/or a permanent relationship. For him enduring the teasing is a means to an end. For her the ego boosting validation she gets from being chased is an end in and of itself.A person is putting up with constant drama and emotional rollercoasters while dating a raging drama queen narcissist, believing that the drama is just something they need to go through short-term in order to grow together, and that eventually they’ll emerge stronger and closer with a more peaceful long-term dynamic if he just weathers the strorm. It’s a tumultuous means that must be endured to get to a peaceful end. For the narcissist however, causing the drama and emotional rollercoaster is the end goal. The narcissist needs the drama to (1) keep herself constantly distracted so that she spends no time alone contemplating the emptiness of her inner life, (2) to transfer frustration onto him because misery loves company and dragging people down is always easier than pulling yourself up and (3) it convinces her her life is much more interesting, emotionally meaningful and adventurous than it really is, thereby allowing her to remain convinced of her unearned sense of superiority.One business partner is willing to tolerate the riskiness and incredible highs and lows of high-stakes entrepreneurship because of the larger, long-term payoffs of wealth and stability he pictures awaiting him on the other side. For him, the riskiness and unpredictability is a means to an end. For his adrenaline junkie business partner however, the riskiness and unpredictability is an end. Avoiding mundanity by getting thrills, even if they’re only short-term, is a higher priority for him than long-term stability. You can see this dynamic at play here.The means/end paradox occurs in when two people are caught in a dynamic where one person’s viewing his actions as means to an end, thereby accruing losses, or psychic sunk costs, while the person viewing his actions as ends is mentally maximizing wins. Thanks to the principle of loss aversion, the means-motivated person becomes more heavily invested and winds up in a sunk cost trap. And the end-motivated person increasingly feels less invested because he’s only been accruing psychic gains the whole time. As a result, the means-based person will usually have more trouble walking away from the relationship and being more tempted to invest more resources than the end-based person. ----------------------------------- Can you think of examples that are personally relevant? I think one of my friends (possibly soon to be former-friend) is on the wrong side of two means/ends paradoxes. He has been trying to get his wife to grow/mature into a stronger woman for quite some time now. But she may be viewing the "make you grow talks" themselves as the major source of emotional connection in her life. Therefore, she extends the presence and frequency of these talks by growing as slowly as possible - while he is eager to have her grow as quickly as possible. Means/ends paradox. Part of him has been trying to get his wife to grow/mature into a stronger woman for quite some time now. But what if part of him enjoys the feeling of superiority over her? Or what if part of him needs to focus on her growth, because his growth is so terrifying for him? In either of those cases, the first part of him wants her to grow as quickly as possible, but the second part of him needs her to grow as slowly as possible - (because slow growth extends the presence and frequency of these "help you grow" conversations). 2
QueechoFeecho Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I deserve a half-slap for nitpicking, but it isn't clear to me that this is a "paradox" so much as a contradiction of intentions/goals/wants. FWIW - I will go half-slap myself in a few minutes so you don't have to!
MMX2010 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 I deserve a half-slap for nitpicking, but it isn't clear to me that this is a "paradox" so much as a contradiction of intentions/goals/wants. FWIW - I will go half-slap myself in a few minutes so you don't have to! Here's something I didn't explain very well, but that the article did. Whomever views the situation from the "Means-perspective" (1) wants to speed the process along, (2) is devoted to the process with all of his being, and (3) is highly emotionally invested in succeeding. But whomever views the situation from the "Ends-perspective" is opposite on all three counts. The paradox arises because: (1) both people are seemingly engaged in the same events for the same reasons AND (2) "Ends-perspective" viewers are rarely honest. Before the sexual revolution, a man in the first situation above would lie about how much he loved a woman - only to dump her whenever he got bored of her. A woman in the second situation doesn't have the self-knowledge to admit that she enjoys teasing men for her emotional benefit - (instead, she either: (a) has unprocessed childhood trauma, or (b) is a very ardent feminist / man-hater who has seemingly rock-solid political reasons that men deserve her scorn). A woman in the third situation NEVER has the self-knowledge to admit how empty her life is, and how scared she is of self-improvement. And an adrenaline junkie business partner (almost) never admits that he loves losing money just as much as he loves gaining money. In their dishonesty, Ends-perspective viewers pretend at least a little bit to have the same goals and values as their Means-perspective partners. So the paradox arises from the fact that someone who appears to share your values and is engaging in the exact same activity as you are, is dramatically different from you. (So different, in fact, that when you finally discover the difference, you'll recoil in horror at your loss.)
wdiaz03 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I might be missing something but I do not see the point of this article. All examples are failures to select proper means to the stated end. a) Regular sex is not the right mean to a PERMANENT monogamous relationship. b) sexual teasing is not the right mean to a PERMANENT relationship... etc. All the examples involve a cognitive errors on the part of one of the parties which to me is the source of the anxiety/frustration. For example: Person A gets on a car (that's going east) because he wants to get to the town to the north. Person B is driving the car for the pure enjoyment of driving. The issue is not that the car is a means for A but an end for B.. but that A has made an error in judgement. (believing that the car going east will take him north) On the other hand. I f person A was correct on his judgement and gets on a northbound car. then it does not matter that the car is a means to him and an end for B. since they will both get what they want as long as both parties are correct in their judgement.
MMX2010 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 All the examples involve a cognitive errors on the part of one of the parties which to me is the source of the anxiety/frustration. The calm businessman has not committed a similar cognitive error, though. If anything, the calm businessman is correct that a slow, patient accumulation of profits is the best way to build a nest egg, and his partner (the wild businessman) is wrong. The point of the article is that two people can participate in the exact same activity, and with the exact same purported goals. But they can easily be on completely opposite pages, due to the dishonesty of the Ends-perspective individual.
wdiaz03 Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The calm businessman has not committed a similar cognitive error, though. If anything, the calm businessman is correct that a slow, patient accumulation of profits is the best way to build a nest egg, and his partner (the wild businessman) is wrong. The point of the article is that two people can participate in the exact same activity, and with the exact same purported goals. But they can easily be on completely opposite pages, due to the dishonesty of the Ends-perspective individual. One could argue that a businessman that enters in a partnership with another when the other person does not share his risk tolerance goals has committed such error. Since he has a formula for calculating his risk while the other might be just guessing and gambling.
Recommended Posts