Friendship and Love and The Psychology of Romantic Love

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I first read Psychology of Romantic Love by Nathaniel Branden in 1995 after attending a talk on Friendship and Love by Carolyn Ray at the 1995 TOC(then IOS) Summer Seminar. The principles governing any type of friendship or romantic relationship are determined by the specific type of psychological visibility we seek to gain and give in that relationship. Those relationships and their characteristics vary in terms of breadth and depth of shared values.

Carolyn gave an interesting example of a friend who was her running partner. He was an avowed Marxist. She said she only wanted to see him with his running shoes on.

The challenge for Objectivists is to build relationships with each other that span the bounds of shared optional values so that we strengthen the breadth and depth of those relationships beyond specific ideological differences we might have with one another.

In the case of the Man/Woman relationships the specific principles governing the relationship include integrating the expression of our masculinity/femininity with shared universal values, shared optional values, sense of life compatibility etc.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

Thank you for posting this.

It has been years since I read this book, but I really liked it back then. The first essay on the history of romantic love is very different in style than the rest of NB's writing - and it is charming.

I have heard that among Objectivists, there is a high marriage failure rate. I wonder if the partners in the failed marriages had read a book like this - or at least contemplated the ideas in it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael:

I have heard that among Objectivists, there is a high marriage failure rate. I wonder if the partners in the failed marriages had read a book like this - or at least contemplated the ideas in it.

It was always my impression that there was a terrifically high romantic-relationship (not just marriage) failure rate among Objectivists. And that there was a reason for the rate of failure, a reason which connects to the psychology/philosophy issue Michael spoke of on the "Two Comments" thread I started in the Living Room forum. Objectivists had a way of choosing partners in accordance with a check-list of abstract agreements and characteristics, instead of in accordance with whom they genuinely enjoyed being with (I think often they didn't even know who the latter people were). Maybe things have improved over the years in regard to romantic choices, with the younger ones having learned from the errors of the older ones. I hope there's been improvement. Of course, failed romantic relationships are by no means limited to Objectivist circles, nor selecting partners on the basis of criteria which aren't good ones to use. I'm just pointing out that there seemed to be a particular type of wrong criteria almost systematically employed by Objectivists.

As to whether the people had "read a book like this." Most of the early Objectivists would have attended the course on which the book was based. I haven't read the book myself, and I admit to hardly remembering the course. The main thing I remember is that I attended the course when it was given on tapes by Callahan after the split, as a form of objecting to the demonizing of the Brandens. I honestly don't remember if there was a moralistic cast in the original lectures. If there was, I assume this was altered when the material was published in book form.

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Well, I've seen a lot of successful Objectivist marriages/relationships too :-). I guess it could be a combination of poor criteria and the fact that Objectivists don't tend to stay in unhappy relationships very long. Also, many Objectivists are career-driven to the detriment of their personal relationships. Unlike advertised, successful marriage is a lot of work. I laugh at the notion that it is supposed to be easy.

Jim

[Charles R. Anderson]

Would it not be interesting to compare the average length of the marriages of TOC members to those of ARI members? I think I know whose average would be longer!

Anna and I have been married for 32 years for one datum.

[jenright]

Charles, are you suggesting that tolerance makes for longer marriages? -John

[Charles R. Anderson]

John --

Well I did not say, but I guess you mean to make me say it.

I think that tolerance makes for longer marriages and longer friendships. It also makes your children think better of you.

One would think that many Objectivists who have not figured this out would have figured this out. To be ignorant of these observable facts makes it clear they care little about reality. It also makes it clear that their marriages, their friends, and their children are of little value to them.

Now that is a strong statement and I know you know that I am right.

[jenright]

Charles: Now that is a strong statement and I know you know that I am right.

I agree about the value of tolerance in romance and family life. I had never thought about the different groups of Objectivists as actually having different marriage survival rates - or different degrees of parent/child appreciation. It's an intriguing point. -John

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would go further than tolerance, which to me is a minimum for maintaining a relationship.

Objectivists use the word "benevolence," but I prefer the old-fashioned "good will." (Love is a presupposition here.)

For instance, if the woman I love has an interest in life that is something I dislike intensely, I will not only tolerate her interest, I will see that she is well served because I want her to be happy. And because I know she wants to share at least some of that interest, I would search for things I could honestly like in it, and even if I did not find them, I would groove on her happiness while I "tolerated" a minimum involvement.

That to me is good will.

On her side, I would expect her to understand that I do not like that interest and not insist on sharing more than what satisfies her urge for attention and not feel neglected.

I hate the attitude of a person in a relationship who piously says, "I want to be completely honest with you because I respect you so much," before being highly callous and cruel. Trying to make your partner happy is a very good thing to do - and if truth be told, it is a very selfish thing to do. Probably one of the most selfish things in love.

Giving and receiving like that is pure heaven on earth.

Michael

[Charles R. Anderson]

John -

But doesn't it defy everything you know about human relationships that unless your spouse, your children, and your friends feel some real respect and appreciation, your relationships will surely be degraded in time? Let's face it, if you are constantly waiting for any opportunity to find fault with someone you love, you will find that fault. I once worked with a man who was generally a good man, but he had a bad flaw. You felt that when he was around, he was always probing your armor with a knife, always looking intensely for any fault or vulnerability. No one wants a relationship in which they are probed that way.

Michael,

When Anna and I lived in Cleveland, we regularly went to the Cleveland Orchestra, the Cleveland Ballet, and the Met Opera Company performances. I directly enjoyed the orchestra and the ballet, though I enjoyed them more with her company. But, I did not generally enjoy opera directly. Anna so much enjoyed it that she really glowed with happiness. That I enjoyed seeing immensely.

[jenright]

Tolerance without love is tolerable. But love without tolerance is miserable.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Love without tolerance soon turns to hate.

[Kat]

I am just reading this book for this first time now and it is wonderful, and quite an eye-opener. It is really helping me understand romantic relationships. The more I read, the more I am convinced that I have fallen in love with exactly the right man for all the right reasons. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would fall in love with someone over the internet like I did and do the long-distance thing like this. Everyday our love grows. The more we get to know about each other, the closer we become. We admire and nurture each other rather than try to change or control each other. Luckily, neither of us has any faults. O:)

Its been a little over a year now since we first said those three magic words to each other. I don't like waiting, but we still have some mountains to move in order to be together as a couple. Nobody said it would be easy. All I know is that Michael is the one for me and I am so looking forward to spending the rest of my life with him. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Romantic love is a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between a man and a woman that reflects a high regard for for the value of each other's person.

I love you, Michael.

Kat

[Barbara Branden]

Kat, Michael is a fortunate man, and you are a fortunate woman.

A boy friend of mine once told me a story that I loved. He said that many of us once lived on Rigel, where our days were filled with happy, carefree play with our friends. But one day, God flung us out of our heaven to all different parts of the earth. And now, we spend their lives searching for our beloved playmates. I think you and Michael have found your playmate from the stars.

[Barbara Branden]

I happened to come across something I posted, some time ago, to Solohq. It is relevant to the discussion here, so I've included it below:

We know very little about the subconscious sources of our attractions and love -- for instance, why a certain face seems to us the most beautiful in the world even when we know that objectively it is not -- why a certain voice seems to have magical intonations -- why a particular combination of masculine and feminine qualities seems to us the ideal. . . I could go on an on.

I think that when we love we feel a sense of completeness with the person we love, as if -- and it may really be so -- the person possesses qualities which add to those we possess in just the right measure. I've observed about others, and it certainly is true in my own case, that we usually tend not to be drawn to someone exactly like we are, but rather to someone who is quite unlike us in many ways. For instance -- to oversimplify -- in my introvert days I was drawn to more extroverted men; when I lived much too much in my mind, I was drawn to more earthy and practically-oriented men.

I'm interested in other opinions on these matters. What do you think?

Rand: "the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another."

I think that where Objectivism went wrong is in the concept that what we love in someone is solely his philosophical virtues. This means that if we discover that virtue 3 & 4 really are not present, only 1, 2, and 5, we can and should reasonably stop loving the person. That, in effect, is what Rand did, or said she did, with regard to Nathaniel. She concluded that he did not possess certain qualities she thought he had, and so she decided, like turning off a tap, to stop loving him. She did not succeed, as she could not have; she merely mixed her love with hatred, and turned it into a poison that nearly destroyed her.

What we love in another person is precisely that person, the total, the gestalt in effect. Not this virtue or that, this way of speaking or that, this turn of phrase or gesture, this shape or limb or that, but the complexity and richness of the whole person. We love even the idiosyncrasies that in someone else might not be loveable; we love them because they are part of that richness.

This is not to say that if your lover turns out to be an axe-murderer, you would continue to love him. You would not, because you were deluded -- likely deluded yourself at least in great part -- about the entire nature of the person, about everything that made him tick. He is, in his entirety, someone other than you thought him to be,

[Charles R. Anderson]

Barbara,

Thanks for repeating this post, which I had not seen earlier. You have described real love very well. Virtues are great, but love and friendships are more than a list of virtues. Intelligence, abilities, an interest in some shared activities, sexual compatibility, an ability to make one another feel better with a smile or a touch, and the ability to ignore some annoying traits, are among many other factors. People, especially interesting and intelligent people, are very complex. I think we need the companionship of such a complex friend and lover in many ways. Among them, it gives us a never-ending effort to understand someone other than ourself, which definitely helps to fight boredom!

Marriage and romance by a list of virtues does not seem to work. It does not appear to be the approach Ayn Rand took to her marriage, though it comes close to being the impression she generally left to the readers of her novels. But this observation puts too much importance on what Ayn Rand did, since she was clearly not an expert on the establishment of fully satisfying loving relationships.

I have often used the word richness myself to describe the value of enjoying a good friend or a lover. The friend/lover is complex and the exploration of their character and interests is exciting and rewarding. The development of the love between two such people is rich in subtlties, rewards, and challenge.

Life in this world is immensely rich and fascinating. The love of a lover or a friend is a closer microcosm of that general richness. It is comfortable to have a sustained relationship with that somewhat more manageably understandable microcosm, though you know it will never actually be fully comprehended.

In such a love, the appreciation of the total person should result in longer-lasting loving relationships. They may not last forever, but one should also expect that few will result in hateful separations. The fact that we see so many such hateful separations is probably evidence that much too often people are not as perceptive in understanding love as you are, Barbara.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

That was a beautiful thought! Thank you.

Playmate of the stars is a perfect description of how I see Kitten inside myself.

As to love - one of the greatest ironies I have found so far in Objectivism is the need so many people have of defining it strictly in consciously selfish terms - and then failing miserably at it.

On a humorous note, if I am consciously selfish only - and being a member of a species is an unimportant detail - then why bother choosing another member of my own species? How on earth do I account for that kind of love? Why not choose a dog, who is often a whole lot more loyal?

I agree with the psychological visibility principle as a good part of the drive. Still, it will be interesting to see what will happen once cloning people becomes a reality. Under a concept of psychological visibility principle being 100% of the cause for love, a person's own clone would give him the greatest psychological reflection - it would be him. Thus he would have no need for others, much less members of the opposite sex (when applicable).

How about that simple herding and mating instinct that is pre-wired in our brains? I am convinced that this is a part of the whole thing, too. I agree that this is complicated. A also see where alignment of virtue level is an important part.

In short, any attempt to boil love down to one thing only will end up being an oversimplification.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~~ I remember in some tape-lecture by LP (probably in a Q&A part where questions irrelevent to the original subject pop up) even he castigated the idea of going by a 'checklist' of any kind in determining who's worth spending time with, worth 'committing' oneself to, etc. He definitely said "follow your feelings", but, unfortunately, with little elaboration on that. Presumably, he meant (akin to BB's example) until you find that that person is basically totally different (as, say, Hannibal Lectre or Mrs. Chop-it...I mean Mrs. Bobbit) from what you 1st thought.

~~ Ntl, 'checklist' or not, I have to say that when some virtues seem more lacking than one thought existed in the other, it's time to take a blinder or two off, no? And then notice the lack of 'honesty', 'rationality', etc, especially as to how much its lack in the other may be affecting one's own life...no?

~~ When one finds a 'perfect match' (as Mike and Kat sure seem to have :D/ ["Don't let it go!" [-X ]), one needs not to keep a running scorecard updated day-after-day, fer sure. --- But, whenever, not trivial, but ongoing probs keep repeating, there's either a mis-communication prob (assuming 'honesty' on both sides), or, a lack-of-a-'virtue'-problem, I'd say. Consider in We The Living, Kira, Leo, and Andre: what happened to the love that Kira had for Andre? Where did it go, and why?

~~ If I may add a comment on 'tolerance' in relationships: Absolutely necessary...to a point, and...depending on just WHAT is being tolerated. --- One thing I've learned about child-raising: man, there's a LOT that is really needed to 'tolerate'. I mean, I'm definitely not in the habit of tolerating having to repeat myself (I think I made that clear elsewhere in another context); but, I've learned the necessity of it having, really HAVING to, be done in teaching (especially behaviour: "CLOSE THE DOOR" [for the umpteenth time]). Toleration of repeating something (again, and again) is necessary there, for a while that is (especially for a Down S. learner). Or, o-t-o-h, enduring others forgetting A, B, etc. Even then, there-are-limits. And THAT's the prob with discussing the concept of 'toleration': limits re whatever subject are never clarified or defined. It's an ambigous concept, sorta useful...but, to an ambigous point.

~~ Aside from that, as to 'toleration' being relevent to one's significant-other(s!)...even Rand once described love as 'exception making', no? If that isn't talking about toleration...in a different perspective(!)...I don't know what is. :-&

LLAP

J:D