« Okay, so let's say a | Main | I went to a barbeque »
Interesting conversation (edited down from
Interesting conversation (edited down from an email exchange):
Friend: You know how you been talking about moving? Well, I think if you move around you quickly discover that most friendships are actually contingent upon something; they're not genuine.
In the last town I was in, I started to make friends with a few people from the office. For example, one dude I started going cycling with on weekends. Now that I've moved, I've found it very difficult to keep up with that friendship. Male friendships are mostly contingent upon some kind of activity, cycling in this case, so the friendship with the bicycler ended.
So now I'm at this new place. I'm getting along well with people at the office, there's laughing around and stuff. But that's where it ends. It is totally that Minnesota nice thing. It seems all swell on the outside but there's no substance to it.
Me: I think that's pretty well true. The friendships that can last through moving away are the ones that really matter -- and those are few and far between. The same thing happens even when you switch jobs -- people that I used to talk to every day about every detail of my life are suddenly gone and it's like...whatever, I guess we have nothing in common anymore.
In Social Psychology I remember it being called the theory of proximity and propinquity. Boiled down to a cliche, it's basically being in the right place at the right time.
Friend: The Theory of Proximity and Propinquity. Hey, I like that, even though it sounds kind of tautological. I'll remember that one. Thanks.
But what it means, if we're honest, is that mostly there is a quid pro quo with relationships, isn't there? They're mostly insubstantial.
Me: Yeah, but how surprising is that? Is there really such a thing as altruism, anyway? Relationships exist as an exchange between two people -- an exchange of emotion, or sex, or company, or entertainment. At their core, they're all like that. Some are deeper than others, in different senses and for different reasons, but that doesn't make them insubstantial necessarily. In my opinion.
I took a class at the U of M about two years ago called Intimate Relationships. There's a phase in the cycle of relationships where one chooses whether to pursue or discard the relationship. And there's this sort of inventory that goes on where you compare the time and energy you've invested in the relationship with the effort it would take to find someone new and start over. I guess humans just naturally do that -- find ways to quantify and compare and categorize things. Even relationships.
Friend: Yeah, I pretty much agree with what you say. The answer to the dating problem is therefore clear: Hire an escort.
Posted August 27, 2002 11:43 PM
Very painful logic. Can't argue with that. Honestly, as interesting and entertaining as this e-mail thread was, it's quite pointless. One cannot logically and rationally explain the nature of such things as friendship and love. ;)
Posted by: perception manager on Wed Aug 28, 2002 | Replytrue on all counts.
Posted by: irish-girl on Wed Aug 28, 2002 | ReplyYeah its obvious you are just using your friend for stimulating conversation.
Posted by: spliv on Wed Aug 28, 2002 | ReplyYay! This Court sustains the arguments presented in the email thread. Love is simply a trick that evolution conjured in order to encourage us to perpetuate the species. I recommend the Friend call (800) HOT-SUZY for total satisfaction.
Posted by: EternalFootman on Wed Aug 28, 2002 | Replypropinquity was Word of the Day on February 21, 2000 at Dictionary.com.
I do agree with the general ideas presented in the conversation, but there's more to it, I think, than Proximity (and my new favorite word!) Propinquity. There is a relationship of interaction between two people, a similarity of experience and asumption that allows for faster sharing of ideas and in general a better relationship.
There are just some people you "click" with, and others that you don't even know, but you know you don't want to know. You know?
Also, to agree completely with the argument, (as I see it--which I think I do), you have to also belive that anyone in a long distance relationship is an idiot. And I may think they are, but there are so many of them that sometimes I find myself doubting it...
but...
if the interaction allows for faster sharing of ideas and in general a better relationship, you've proven my point! it means that the "currency" of that relationship (ideas, information, whatever) is exchanged faster. in most people's minds faster is better, so if you are in a relationship where that exchange is tedious and difficult you want to bail. because a) you can't get what you want and b) they can't get what they want.
and i don't think you have to agree that someone in a long distance relationship is an idiot. it just means that what they need/want is either a) best served by not having to be around the person all the time (low maintenance, easy) or b) when they are around the person their needs are fulfilled so completely that they are willing to give up short term fulfillment for the long term purpose of being with that person.
a) i used the a and b thing twice in that post, and b) it's annoying.
Posted by: irish-girl on Wed Aug 28, 2002 | Replythis is fucking depressing.
good thing I don't believe it, can't understand it, and am willing to ignore it.
why live life believing people like you for reasons other than the fact you're a nice person? I'm sure that's true in some cases where there is the opportunity(or precieved opportunity) for money or sex but I'd rather think my friends like me at least partially because I like them. And because I'm a good person.
Of course I don't have any facts to back this up-I didn't take any comm classes in college but I did see Dr. Phil on Oprah.
i think you're misunderstanding the argument.
i'm sure there are some people that like me for being nice, or funny, or whatever. i'm sure there are people who like you for the same reasons. the argument is not that people don't like each other for good reasons -- the argument is that BECAUSE you are nice or funny other people get reward from that. and therefore the relationship continues -- because THEY are getting something of value, as are you. if neither party is getting anything of value, the relationship crumbles.
it's not depressing, and it doesn't (in my opinion) undermine the importance or validity or depth or meaning of relationships.