Relationship advice?

Christian@lemmy.ml to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world – 300 points –

I need some relationship advice. I suggested 125% but my wife won't budge from 10%. Is this normal? How did it go when you had this conversation with your romantic partner?

96

Playing hypothetical games like this are poisonous to a relationship. My advice is to not do that kind of thing anymore.

I had a boyfriend who early on told me if he won the lottery, I would no longer be part of his life.

Then guess what happened? I got a ridiculous family inheritance and he was no longer part of my life.

Shit, if I won the lottery my wife would be the only one who'd be part of my life. Fuck everyone else, we're disappearing into the ether to enjoy fucking around the world.

Yea I would have this conversation with my partner but as a joke that we'd both find amusing.

This is surely satire right? Why's everyone taking it so seriously?

You can never be sure on the Internet. Plus, I know there are people who think like this; my mom did something similar to my dad when I was a kid. When they were first dating she told him she didn't want to be tied down, a sentiment that he thought was long over by the time they got married. Much to his surprise, she was angry that he wasn't more accepting when he caught her cheating. Decades later, she still claims that she was entirely justified, and that my dad is an asshole for getting angry at her.

People need to communicate these things. If either myself or my partner wants to be with someone else, it is discussed. It allows everyone to make an informed decision going forward and no one is betrayed. Only time this ever happened with us, we were with the same person

If this tweet is real then I would 100% expect something like this from this guy.
Edit: I mean I think Yudkowsky is being sincere. The lemmy OP is clearly a joke

I find the quantification of very emotional topics not very helpfull in the long run:

What counts as "10% better"?

Do you know if the number, should it even exist, stays consistent? Or that you got the "correct one"?

My advice:

Find out what you seek out in a relathionship, what you want to avoid, and then talk about it.

Because "10% better" could just mean the other guy is driving more carefull with the family-car, doesnt chew with an open mouth or shaves more often.

Yeah the idea that somebody has a percentage rating of quality is genuine lunacy. It's also sociopathic to overlook that being fond of someone despite their flaws or "lower rating".

This seems to be the whole point. Neg the other person and make them question their own worth. "Oh, no! I'd better keep them happy. Is THAT GUY 10% better than me!?"

If they chew open mouthed and are not amenable to change that is a straight up deal breaker, sorry not sorry, my misophonia doesn't leave room to compromise on that.

Wow this guru of AI and rationality is a dipshit. Makes me wonder about all those Silicon Valley folk and vc people that take him seriously. 🤔

No kidding. Anyone who thinks the hallmark of a good relationship is being able to determine the point at which they would dump their SO for someone "better" and somehow distill that down to a concrete (yet still highly subjective) number should just avoid relationships altogether. At least until they've consulted a proctologist about removing their head from their own ass.

You do realize this is satire though?

No, I know this dude's deal, he is 100% for real (or trying to get a reaction, but that's not satire on its own). His posts are often like this.

Wait what?! Not for one second did I think that this could be anything else than satire

Yudkowsky is well-known for his work in AI. He occasionally makes jokes, but it's usually about AI (not relationships). I know that on his profile, it says something like "when I don't use punctuation, it's a joke," akin to Reddit's /s.

And yeah, he left off a period on the first post, though not the other two. But that said, he rarely makes multi-part jokes. It's pretty clear to me, having read his posts and articles for a while, that he means this.

To further clarify that this is a "rationalist" of the highest order, consider that he wrote a half-a-million-plus word fanfic of Harry Potter, but with Harry studying science instead of magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

I hate that I love that story, but HPMOR is actually genuinely really good.

No shame in that! It is actually pretty well-written, and it has some engaging points. I'm not "anti-rationalism" or anti-this-guy or anything like that. LessWrong did more for global altruism than I ever will.

I'm just pointing out that a person who has dedicated their entire public persona to an ideology (or lack of one) is probably not joking when they start evaluating romantic partners with supposedly objective percentages.

What a business degree does to a mf

He's an autodidact. Not sure why it matters, but I just thought "of course he is".

I honestly enjoy seeing people like this with batshit insane but logically consistent views. Makes things much more fun

This guy essentially founded modern "rationalism." He has millions of literal followers, not just the Twitter kind. His dumbass is the one that spawned the Effective Altruism cult that has become extremely popular with tech bros. Sam bankman-fried, Sam Altman, Elon musk all subscribe to this "philosophy." It's all batshit insane and incredibly stupid.

When your ego is large enough to fantasize that a malevolent AI will create a simulation of yourself to torture for eternity simply because you didn't spend all your money trying to bring it into being.

As an autistic dude, I feel like I know that it's weird too say, but I also feel like it makes sense. Like it's hard to quantify x% better, but I'm sure there is a number, for me at least, where if someone is that much better and would date me, I'd do it. It's not romantic to say, but it's true. And I've been dumped for other people twice so the same must have been true for them.

It just feels like one of the thousands of unspoken rules you're not allowed to talk about out of politeness. But honestly I would like to know that number for my SO.

If you're curious about an alternative view, I suggest The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm. Relationships are about growing your own and the others natural abilities, something you do and not about trading something you have. The OP post is a materialistic view and a belief in inequality. YMMV.

He's also the psycho who founded a movement which designed to let insane billionaires justify spending their money however they want, no matter the people they hurt now, as long as it's 'for the greater good' long term.

The OOP needs to kiss the business end of a wood chipper if you ask me

Interesting, I haven't heard his name. I do like Nick Bostrom though. I started reading about this Effective Altruism, on paper it sounds all very nice, but this OOP materialist nonsense bodes very bad for any ethical AI lol. It also seems to be focused on donating and solving everything with billionaire money instead of on governance. Do you have a link to some good critique of this EA stuff?

EDIT: Never mind, found lots of it lol !sneerclub@awful.systems. These extremes growing out of longtermism and TESCREAL should be a laughing matter but apparently they are well funded gaining access. A good article summing this up.

I'm very much aligned with these sci-fi ideas except the first thing we should teach an AGI is to love (see my book recommendation). Which seems something OOP has little capability for. Extinction might not be the worst case scenario with these guys at the helm lol.

sure. just codify the human experience of love, marriage, sex, relationships, family and their interpersonal connections and the entire population into a single integer in a way that the difference between 42 and 43, and 1 and 153, is meaningful to everyone regardless of race, culture, creed, ethnicity, language, class, location, age, upbringing, wants, needs, desires, hopes, dreams and in a way that remains meaningful for up to 8 decades as well as the first meeting of a relationship and encourages people to feel safe, confident and happy to leave a relationship based on a relative number to their assigned integer. It should keep you busy for a little while but I look forward to seeing what number you assign to, for eg a Liberian refugee in Sierra Leone or a Changar itinerant harvesting travelling village, or Prince Harry of England and when I see it I can say "ah, yes, an 81, of course."

This is a weird attempt to put me down?? Obviously this is a personal number, I have no idea why you think I'm implying there is one formulas that fits every person in the world other than you just wanted to fight.

I didn't intend it to be personal, but you did say you see the appeal, so I was doing a bit on the concept. But not really dedicated to you. After all, we're all just usernames to each other at on here.

"Is this normal?"

No, it is not normal to state what percent-better-person you would leave your romantic partner for. It's cynical and narcissistic.

What if your partner is in an accident that changes how they look or live? Now that they're X% "less" than what you signed on for, you can just dip?

Like I get being upfront about stuff, but this is just transactional. It's not about your commitment to another person, it's about maximizing your return on investment.

You could have answered my question a bit earlier, I broke my nose this morning and now her divorce lawyer has informed me that my neighbor across the street has gone up to 12% better than me.

EDIT: I just went over and broke the guy's kneecaps and am now happily married again.

Mozel tov, may your love enemy forever crawl on his belly

And wait till they start disagreeing on if that person is really "75%" better. I bet you this guy is single

This Eliezer Yudkowsky. He wrote a bunch of nerd fanfiction, and is apparently mostly famous for his takes on AI. He is a public figure.

Ive no plan to meet second best nor be second best and I wouldn't want to put someone through that nor go through it.

We live in a world of consumption and throw away culture, we should have more respect then to inflict these ideas on living breathing and feeling people.

Fuck that guy and his creed.

I seriously doubt that's his creed.

It's clearly meant as a parody of the way relationships end, but said out loud, in advance, to show the absurdity of exactly what you called out: "trading up" out of a relationship.

The whole point of his post, was to get people to realize how shitty it is to think of people that way.

No this guy is a guru and has influenced a lot of silicon valley with this type of "parody" look him up if you haven't already.

Oof, fair enough. I just ran head first into Poe's law. Thank you for the added context. Yeah, he's a piece of shit then.

I'm pretty sure the ROI for relationships with people who quantify abstractions is in the negative.

They are. Which is why these people go for FWB...if they can even get that

Tell me you're a 44 year old man with a Messiah complex who spends his Friday nights trolling college bars for girls his estranged daughter's age without telling me.

I have had this easy with one simple trick: be naturally worse than literally any other person out there and you'll never need to worry about someone trading up because they won't take you to begin with!

Checkmate logic dude!

I understand why someone would say this, it’s just acknowledging your own shortcomings in a way and realizing that you can’t be everything that someone might want. But so what? If someone is willing to do this math with you, then they’re not really appreciative of you as a person. Imperfect is fine, insecure is not.

"Legibility" 😆

How has no one else screamed "HE MEANS ELIGIBILITY!" ??

I think he means "legibility" as in being more clear, upfront, honest, open. It's still a weird way to use the word

I don't think so. Because in a world of greater ELIGIBILITY, (a world of greater amounts of dateable fuckable people), everyone would be constantly "trading up" on relationships. But the world is NOT full of ELIGIBLE (dateable fuckable) people. Most people are happy if they can find ONE eligible (dateable fuckable) person, so they stick with them.

I know for a fact he meant "legible". I've read a lot of his work and talked a great deal with people in the rationality community, and legible makes perfect sense there.

So the idea is you set the playing field with this subject, with zero intent to actually play ball.

Become inscrutable. It's hard to find the percentage of an unknown quantity.

They're off thinking about percents but you're about to become the equivalent of Andy Kaufman. One minute they're convinced you're Elvis, the next they're wondering if the breadcrumb trail you've left about faking your death is a joke or something you're real about.

Yeah I've had this conversation but percentages are too hard. I said if it comes down to where they need to tabulate and weigh pros vs cons then I already lost. I don't want to be in those kinds of games.

This is a stupid measure. I say that because every person I've dated, which isn't a short list, puts their best foot forward when they start seeing someone. For some, that's just who they are, they stay consistent, but IMO, this is rare.

For most, the "mask falls off" at some point and you get to see the seedy underbelly of who they are. All the "warts" in their lifestyle, personality, decision-making etc. Usually after you're committed to a relationship with them and they get more conformable.

This, in and of itself, denotes a certain uncertainty in dating. The person you meet is not the person you will end up with after a few years. I recognized this in myself and decided for myself not to do it. There's still parts of my personality I kind of restrain in spite of this policy because some of my darker humor can be rather off putting on the first take, and usually makes a bad impression if said so early into knowing someone that they don't take it as a joke, which it was intended to be. It doesn't help that I usually joke about things very deadpan, so new people tend to doubt when I say "it's a joke" and jump to the conclusion that I'm just saying that because I'm trying to save face. Which I'm not, but that's another matter.

My point is, even for me, you don't meet the person, you meet their idealized view of what they want you to know of them. So someone who seems 10%/25%/125% better than your current partner, isn't really a valid comparison. You're comparing someone who you know their "ugly" side, to someone who you have only met their representative personality. Their % "better" may be artificially inflated because you don't have the whole picture.

The other issue I have here is that while he's correct that "not everyone sees marriage like that" or whatever, they should. Marriage is a vow. A vow is simply a commitment to uphold into the future, regardless of circumstances. During a wedding ceremony, you vow, before your friends, family, the officiant (a legal representative) and God (if you believe in such a thing), that you will love, cherish, have, hold, another person, in sickness, health, good times and bad, until you die. You're making a very serious promise to do those things forever until your death, in front of everyone you hold dear.

Divorce breaks that promise, and a legally binding contract.

Personally, I couldn't give any shits if others break their word with their marriage vows/contract, but the purpose of the vows is clear. This is a promise that should not be broken, and can only be terminated by death. Vows are supposed to be the highest form of a promise, one which cannot be broken. But people do it.

That's the theory at least....

People's misunderstanding of what that means, IMO, is mainly a lack of being educated on what the words are spelling out. People don't take vows anymore except in marriage. It's fallen out of fashion to commit yourself to something with a vow. Because of the relative scarcity of such vows, they're only used in marriage now and the misunderstandings of what a vow should represent is staggering. The only other person's who take vows in the current era are doctors. They take the Hippocratic oath, which is, in essence, a vow to "do no harm", yet, it can easily be argued that harm is actively inflicted during every medical procedure. Whether placing an IV, taking blood, or doing surgery, you're actively harming your patients; but it's generally understood that such things are a requirement to help people. It's still committing harm for the benefit of the patient, but it is harm nonetheless.

I'll step away from that aside since it's not relevant to the core point, that all of these comments made in the image posted by OP are a demonstration of this fundamentally short sighted thinking and poor understanding of the commitments you make.

I really like your view on this, I've had rare occasions where I'm contemplating whether I want to live the rest of my life with this person. I've felt bad about it before because it feels very dishonest, but I will always fall back to the fact that the person in question is a step down relatively speaking and doesn't make sense to end my healthy current relationship. Being open about that is hard, because you feel like an ass even contemplating ending a relationship.

As someone once said, happiness isn't having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

Unless there's a significant and unresolvable issue between you and your current SO, that is ongoing, it is probably the better choice to stay.

I'll give an example: My college gf, who we will call Jen, because that was her name, lived with my midway through college, and we got along line peas in a pod, except for one thing. She was highly religious. Her belief was some form of Christian, I'm somewhere between a spiritualist/agnostic and atheist. My view is mostly live and let live on such matters. I frankly don't care whether anyone has faith; the only time it's an issue is when I'm preached to, that my beliefs are wrong or whatever and that God wants me to blah blah blah whatever. That's my line. She wasn't the preachy type, so I never had a problem with the arrangement. She, however, continually had little crisis attacks about it. Worrying over my soul or whatever, she was clear that according to her faith, I would be going to hell. For me, this poses no issue. I couldn't care less what get faith thinks of what will happen to me after death. So I'm unbothered. However this concerned her greatly. It was raised time and time again, and I could feel more and more resentment of her faith, every time it did, but I'm not the sort to either be preached at, nor preach to anyone about what they believe. I didn't make efforts to dissuade her of her faith.

It was literally the only thing we ever fought about.

What ended the relationship can be summarized by one statement she made to me near the end of the relationship. I don't remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of "I don't want to be with someone, if I can't spend eternity with them in heaven [after we die]". To me, that was the nail in the coffin that solidified the fact that this was an irreconcilable difference and the relationship would not survive. I would not capitulate to being a part of a religion I genuinely did not believe in, and she would not compromise that stated objective, and so we were at an impasse that could not ever be resolved.

She's a lovely girl. Like anyone, Jen had/has her problems, but they were far outweighed by her demeanor, care for others, consideration... Just everything about her was fantastic. Any other issues she had were very minor to me, and I hope she makes someone (who is of the same faith as her) very happy some day, and in turn, leads a very joyous life.

I still have a lot of love for her, even now, though in more of a friendship kind of way ("agape" love, if you will), and I will always think of her and wish her a happy life.

For me, I went on and found a very nice and lovely young lady, who shares a lot of the same traits, but in a different way, and also has more compatible religious views. (Not that young, it's only a 6 year difference... I just don't want that to come across wrong. Heh).

We've been together now for... Gosh, seven years? Or something? It's never been a big priority for either of us to track anniversaries or anything, so I lose all sense of how long we've been together. It feels like she's always been a part of me and right now, I can't see myself ever leaving, and she feels much the same. We address issues head on with discussion as it becomes relevant, and we do not scream/yell/fight the same way most couples do. We deliberate, disagree, discuss productively. We even have agreed to disagree on things, but even that form of "fighting" is rare. Neither of us is so picky that anything becomes such an important matter to get angry about it. I'm very happy, and even if Jen were to reverse her decision and want a relationship, I would say no. That ship has sailed, I'm happy where I am and even with all the love I still have for Jen, I will not sacrifice my current relationship, nor would I hurt my current SO like that. I'll be her friend, nothing more.

That situation may be compounded by the fact that my name and my current SO's name are on the mortgage and deed for our home. Ha. Not the only reason, and certainly not the most significant reason, but still. We're in this together and nothing can undo the bond I share with my SO. A ring will be appearing in the near future when finances allow for it.

The point of all of this is to demonstrate that there are irreconcilable differences that should be recognised, and with Jen, it took upwards of a year for that to surface and longer to become such an issue, that we parted ways. When you know that no such difference exists, then the relationship is worth trying to keep.

At the same time, if you're so dissatisfied with the relationship that you're entertaining the thought of finding a different mate, then I would advise that you examine why you feel that way and address that, with professional help if required. Being true to yourself and genuine with your partner is the only way to "make it work". If there's something that is leaving you wanting more, then you either have to adjust your expectations, or they will have to step up to meet your needs, or you'll need to find someone who will. It's not uncommon that you'll simply need to find someone better suited for you than your current partner. It happens, and it's not necessarily a bad thing to move on. Simply: over time that lack of whatever you need to feel satisfied, will evolve into resentment of your partner and lead to both of you being unhappy. That's unfair to you and them. So if you're dissatisfied and you are unable to change how you feel through adjusting your expectations, and they cannot commit to change long term, then it's time to leave and find someone who will meet your needs. It's unfair to drag someone through the pain and arguing surrounding those feelings of resentment that will inevitably follow; both to them, and to you.

The right choice will be very personal. Nobody can make that choice but you. It sucks, in the moment, but long term, you'll both be better off.

I was happy to make it work with Jen, she was unable to accept me for who I was. I went through that with her. It ended things. I'm better off and I hope she is too.

All the best Jen. I don't know if you'll ever read this, but I hope you're happy and healthy. You'll always hold a special place in my heart and I will always care for you deeply. I wish we could have stayed friends, but you determined that was not what was best for you. I hope it helped.

Wow, I did not expect such an extensive vent. I feel really grateful to read that chapter of your life though. Coincidentally this is very relatable for me, as my current partner is also religious. I've often asked before whether she's okay with me not believing in god and she's always been chill about it. It feels nice that we haven't found any major differences between us (ofcourse that can still happen at any time).

As for the dissatisfaction part, I'm not sure why it's happened in the past. Maybe the thrill of a new partner sounds exciting in the moment. I'm definitely not dissatisfied with anything in my current relationship though, except maybe the lack of seeing each other since we've been very busy this period in time.

Relationships are hard nonetheless. I've opened up to her about having thoughts about it once, and she told me she's never experienced something like that. I'm in my early 20's, so I'm just hoping this is something that fades over time. The last thing I want in life is to hurt her.

Im really glad to hear that your relationship currently is doing good, and 7 years does seem like quite a while. Wishing you the best man.

I’d like to actually discuss the problems I perceive with Yudkowsky‘s take for a moment, before everyone can go on with telling each other how crap his opinion is.

First, quantifying emotional states is hard, if not impossible at the moment. This could easily lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings, as it is not clear what x% "better" means.

Second, people probably don’t always want to live in constant fear of getting dumped by their partners. I mean, I get it, if you are in a relationship where you would leave your partner for someone else it’s definitely not a bad idea to be clear about that, but I don’t think that is the norm at all in relationships "even" apart from marriage. So his tweet about marriages being an agreement to ignore other options is not wrong itself, but he seems to lack the understanding that many relationships outside of marriage include this social contract as well.

Especially in a monogamous relationship, this view does not seem to make sense to me as it’s just a possibly emotionally hurtful way to tell your partner about your fear of commitment.

Being poly makes this a non-issue. In the case that one of my partners meets someone else they want to date at least as much as me, they do. This seems to lead to greater overall happiness.

I know for a fact that Eliezer is open to dating poly people, although I don't know if he is himself poly or just poly compatible.

If they meet someone they want to date more than you, why would they keep you around? You're 75% less ideal. What are you bringing to the table, besides a lower average score for the polycule?

Why are you the voice of my insecurities? :p

Clearly it's because I'm another dedicated player for the polycule tabletop game.

Not sure where that 75% number is coming from?

Sorry, I didn't mean to poke at your anxieties! I was remarking on the arbitrary nature of the original post.

While you're probably right that Eliezer is open to dating poly people, the post in question definitely appears to take a monogamous stance—that is, the question of whether to exchange one person for another of "higher value."

Saying that you're cool if

one my partners meets someone else they want to date at least as much as me, they do

is different from

I'd trade up if I found somebody 10%/25%/125% better than you

which is what the original post said.

My partners bring a lot to our relationships. I find it a lot harder to understand what they see in me.

My sense is that he is talking about the modal relationship in our society, that is mono, and in which my understanding is that people often (I would say at least 10% of the time?) do in fact have the "trading up" nature. That being the case, I think it's better for the participants in a relationship to be aware of that, and at what threshold to expect it? Having a moderately awkward discussion early on seems better than the heartbreak later.

This is coming from a very ask / tell culture perspective. I'm autistic enough (diagnosed, not slang / common use) that guess culture / relationships as imperfect information games is a distinctly negative experience. I don't find any "magic" in not considering bad outcomes or pretending that potential futures don't exist (the "happily ever after" expectation) or in leaving things unsaid.

I wouldn't call 10% of the time "often," but let's entertain the idea that it's a popular concept regardless. We'll say 100% of people are like this. And they're constantly trying to trade up. What does that look like? Would most relationships be based on mutual trust and compassion, or would they be cynical cycles of mercenary evaluation?

Meanwhile, though you seem very rational, even the most rational person isn't free from their subjective experience or perception. It begs the question: how much do you trust your partners' assessment of you, or themselves, to stay the same for years to come? I can promise it will not. In this paradigm of value-over-commitment, all relationships (even poly ones) are doomed to fail.

When you make a proper commitment to someone (or multiple someones), you're not shirking the negative possibilities by leaving your "trade-up threshold" unsaid. You're saying, "I accept the good with the bad."

And no, I'm not saying people should stick with an abusive partner or someone they don't like or love. I'm saying that the "trade-up" model is an oversimplified view that places the onus of being "good enough" on another person while shedding the fundamental responsibilities of growing both as individuals and together.

Sure, "happily ever after" is a fantasy, but working toward a lifelong partnership isn't—unless, of course, you've got one foot out the door from day one.

If things change, either internally or interpersonally, and people do change, then I'd rather be able to have an open discussion in those cases as well. I'm into my seventh year with my primary, and I don't foresee things breaking down in a hurry. Still, if being with me was bringing him more suffering than satisfaction, I'd want to know that. It may be that things can be improved within the relationship, although they likely won't without communication. It may also be that things can be improved within the relationship, in which case I'd prefer to know that. I want my partners to be happy, and while there would be an emotional hit to learn that they would be happier without me, I value them being happy more than I value trying to maintain a relationship that is a drag. Like fish, once the relationship is dead I think it's better to get rid of it before it starts to stink. I don't think that a relationship that doesn't make the people in it happy is worth maintaining for the sake of maintaining it.

All I'm saying is, much like using a litany of addons for World of Warcraft, that it's possible to optimize yourself out of happiness. I don't trust myself (or anyone else) enough to say what "percent" better someone would need to be to ditch a long-standing partnership, and anyone who does is probably a narcissist.

I still kind of miss DBM, since I raid on FFXIV these days.

I would expect a narcissist to be completely incapable of making such an evaluation to any degree of accuracy; the kind of self honesty it would require seems foreign to my understanding of the narcissistic mind. Is it possible you were thinking of sociopathy here?

Yeah, I feel that. I tried to find a happy middle ground with my add-ons, but the reality is that the game evolved with the expectation that (at mid-to-high levels of play) you use them. That sucks the fun out of it for me when I know the game itself is pushing me to plug in extra crunchy stuff. Sometimes I just wanna be a cool panda monk. And just hanging in Goldshire isn't really the experience I want, either.

In regards to ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder), one of its hallmarks is challenges in starting or maintaining relationships. Doesn't mean they don't have them, just that they're really really bad at beginning and keeping them. Meanwhile, those with ASPD are unlikely to consider the viewpoint of another person due to their impaired empathy and struggle to acknowledge others' inner lives. I don't think a sufferer would even consider having a conversation about this with another person.

Narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, often includes the pursuit of higher status by getting close to those with desirable attributes or characteristics. Unlike those with ASPD, people with NPD don't display an impaired ability to empathize or consider others' mental states (though they do struggle with relating to anyone else's experiences).

A narcissist would have zero qualms in telling someone the conditions under which they would abandon them; it would reinforce their (perceived) superior value and demonstrate their power over the other person. Of course, I doubt they would love hearing their partner's evaluation of them, and this would probably be a mostly one-sided conversation (as I imagine it often is in real life, should it happen).

But yeah, I think it's safe to say that if you're a climber who thinks so highly of yourself that you can put hard and fast digits on your loved ones, you're at least a pre-narcissist.

It's from the image post.

Ah, the last section. Not incredibly relevant to my post?

On the whole I don't really model an average of the polycule as a general thing. If dating someone I'm not currently would make me happier I talk to my partners about the possibility of a relationship. Thus far this has never gone in an either / or direction; it doing so would be a significant reduction in expected happiness.

Unrelatedly, that paragraph drove my autocorrect / suggester absolutely stupid. It kept trying to shove "def" into the last sentence, and suggesting other nonsense.

Ask them how they calculate that number. They'll get super incel-ly.