greyine: (Default)
[personal profile] greyine
A ponderance:
On the poly community, the opinion was recently brought up that in order for polyamory to work, there has to be a sense of the other person's happiness outweighing your own, with the understanding that your happiness will outweigh their own. Now, I've come to believe this isn't a good thing in general, polyamorousness or not, and my SO agrees: it fosters codependence, and you can't love someone else fully before you love yourself. That aside, the concept of each person acting sub-optimally for themselves in order to make the situation as a whole come out optimally is at the heart of popular gaming theory. A common gaming problem is this: if neither of us talks, we'll each get 1 year in prison. If one turns in the other, the turn-coat gets off scott-free and the other gets 3 years. If we both turn in each other, we both get 3 years. The best solution is for us both to take our one year in prison and resist the temptation to make a deal for a better offer. This very rarely occurs in practice, though, because of the greedy nature of human beings. So, gaming theory does indeed foster an atmosphere of codependence - you are dependent on your partner or teammates for an optimal result. Where, then, are the core incompatibilities in applying game theory to happiness in relationships, if codependence is necessary for one and (IMO) unhealthy for the other? Perhaps the difference is in the definition of "optimal" solution, as it is difficult to quantify an optimal solution in a relationship as simply as outlined in the gaming example above. Hm. I wonder how one would go about quantifying an optimal solution for a polyamorous relationship?

Re: Prisoner's Dilemma and Primacy

Date: 2003-06-12 08:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
A couple things: Did you mean the first comment to be done with [ profile] adamdray, or would you like to consolidate to [ profile] _rage and/or have me friend-lock this (and add you to friends)? :) Also, you've been talking to [ profile] giggleblushhide too much if you think I wanted this other guy as another full primary. :) I may've mentioned it once or twice, but in general I've always thought that he'd be a secondary. A very close secondary, but the understanding would be that in any conflict, my fiancé would "win". But I do agree, were he hypothetically to become another primary to me, it would be in a situation very similar to what you're describing above, and I would definitely push for the three of us to move in together, and possibly handfast to him. I just never carried the "two primaries" hypothetical speculation that far in my conversations with GBH because I didn't give the thought that much merit. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? Not really, but you and GBH both sounded concerned about my dual poly ideas, and I just wanted to assuage them. :)

Friends list

Date: 2003-06-18 08:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Thank you for adding me to your friends list.

Re: Friends list

Date: 2003-06-18 09:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
You have insightful comments and a wealth of experience; I'm glad to have you aboard! :)


greyine: (Default)

May 2003

252627 28293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 09:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios