Sunday, November 11, 2007

The people that we love

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

I’ve been thinking lately about how we view the people that are dear to us. I don’t mean in terms of not seeing their flaws, or painting a pretty picture of them in our heads. Maybe women tend to do that more than men, I don’t know, but being male (not to mention being myself) it’s not easy to ignore what I see, therefore making for some rather sharp critique sometimes – though I am working on it, I’m glad to say.

No, I mean about how we actually perceive the people that we love, the people that we care for. What is the image of them that we form in our heads, what is our representation of them in our minds. I do not think we can ever see people that are close to us completely objectively, we cannot see them for what they are. I think we create an image of them in our head and this is what we see every time we see them, every time we talk to them. You do not talk to your girlfriend directly, what she says gets filtered through your perception of her in your mind. You might hear her say something, but the way you interpret that depends on the image that you’ve made for her in your mind.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, though it might help to reinforce the notion that love is blind, as (to paraphrase the Gorillaz), “we don’t see with our eyes, we perceive with our minds”, hence you usually have quite a different opinion of your friend’s girlfriend/boyfriend than what they have. We use that every day and with (practically) everyone, as it makes the whole task of processing information and reacting accordingly much easier and faster. Nothing new so far, and you could have picked all this up in any basic psychology book – well, I wouldn’t know, but it sounds reasonable.

The twist in what I want to discuss here with you is the apparent (or perceived) age of those around us that we feel some affection towards. That’s right, their age.

See, this “avatar” that we create in our heads seems to me to always be somewhat younger than the people in consideration. The best example is perhaps the way parents always think of their children as being twelve years old (or there about), even if that age has long gone and their children now have families of their own. It is the same way that you might view your siblings (the younger ones, anyway), as always being ten years old – that’s how I still view my brother, for example, even though he is in university and drives his own car. This perspective is always switched on, even if we are not aware of it. Ok, it’s easy to observe this when, for example, lovers are being “cute” with each other; you know what I mean, all that “my sweet honey bunny” and stuff, where the level of communication usually drops to pre-school ages. This is, perhaps, because the grown-up world of words and grammar cannot effectively contain and convey affection, but I think this extends to other situations as well. How do you think of your loved one when she is happy (I am talking to guys here, as things are maybe different for women, do feel free to enlighten me on this), when she is laughing? Do you have this image of a strong congruent adult smiling about something amusing, or do you see a young girl smiling with all her heart and shining eyes?

One of the easiest ways to test this is to give her a sparkler. You’re out in the garden/back yard/beach/desert, and you give her a sparkler and light it (assuming she doesn’t have a phobia of them, of course; that would be just cruel). How old does she see when she’s swinging that sparkler around, when she’s just happy with something simple and fun?

What about your very best and dear friends? Do you honestly view them as grown up, well-formed, well-rounded individuals? Are you butch and manly about them, or do you feel as these are the people that you could go on a childish adventure with, to roll around in the sand playing football on a sunny day at the beach, to share your toys/DVDs/PS3s/music with as you did with your Hotweels so many years ago?

It might be, of course, that I am simply immature, that I have missed out on an important part of my personal growth and evolution, and that is why I find this normal. But if not, is it a consequence of affection that we view some people to be so much younger than us, or is it simply our paternal/maternal instincts that surface under such circumstances? Is it that we are “programmed” by thousands of years of forming families in order to survive to perceive our loved ones as children in order to awaken those instincts and reactions that will be necessary when dealing with our own children when they come?

Questions, questions...

4 dropped in:

Björkin said...

OK, you really made me think this time (damn it!)
Friends to me are "kids" that you have fun with just like you did when you were 6. The significant other for me (speaking from my point of view as a woman but not on behalf of other women) cannot under any circumstances be a "boy". If your "mate" is a boy then you're in serious trouble- that is if you are looking for a serious relationship, which I think most women over a certain age are doing whether they know it or not. The love interest has to be a grown up, someone that is able to be reliable etc. If you think of him as being young then he goes into the "flavour of the month" category, someone to enjoy for a short time and then if the relationship gets serious- you run for the hills. Us girls need someone who's compatible- not someone to mother or worst case scenario- someone that we think we can change.
Make sense?

It's a-me! said...

Absolutely.
So men prefer to view their girlfirends as "girls", while women prefer the "man!" approach; and both genders view their friends as wee lads/lassies (just puked in my mouth, damn Scottish). Fantastic, and all this simply based on the opinion of two people (you and me), therefore it must be real. Rock on!
This will form one of the important chapters of my book on Paleopsychology, which explains a lot about (mostly) relationships and dynamics between the genders.
Oh dear...

Wintermute said...

Oh dear indeeed! I'm afraid I have to destroy your wonderful theory even before the book goes into print by adding a third opinion - I personally do tend to look at my men as 'boys' from a certain point of view, in the same sense in which friends are kids to have fun and play with. Now where I do agree with Bjork is that significant others can't under any circumstances be like children to be mothered (i.e., mothering is optional and occasionally done to express affection, but not a permanent state of things), but they can't be too grown-up either - I find people who are too seriously grown-up a bit scary (and mostly rather boring as well).

I would add that I personally include myself in the 'kids' category that my friends belong to, which might be a sign of a certain immaturity, or simply an expression of the tendency to look at the people in one's own age group as 'normal' (whereas everyone else is either 'really young' or 'old') - i.e., they don't seem to change because they're aging at the same rate as yourself and therefore in relation to you always stay 'the same'.

It's a-me! said...

Never fear, for my theory still stands. If nothing else, you have ust made it stronger by providing an additional effect, which has to do with conflict of approaches required to produce the desired effect.
In terms of friends, it seems that everyone (i.e. us three) views them as school-time buddies, having fun, playing etc. So that part is safe and sound. The fact that you view yourself as a kid as well only reflects the need to fit in with your friends (if you view them as kids, you have to be a kid as well, and vice versa), so in that sense everyone is (or is perceived by someone as being) immature and childish.
In terms of "your men" (love it), this fantastic new branch of amateur psychology that I refer to as Paleopsychology (copyright, trademark, registered, mine MINE MIIINE!) can provide an explenation again. Especially if combined with regular psychology for the individual's character, I think this can provide the answer to "everything you wanted to know about relationship dynamics but were too dumb to ask about" or, as I recently etitled a similar presentation (in a friend's house, over stir fry and a certain amount of wine):

"From Caveman to Metrosexual: A History of Relationships"

But I'm afraid you'll have to wait for my next post to learn a bit more about this new revolutionary concept. Your contribution(s) will be used and referenced appropriately :)