Scanning the Horizon for Greener Grass on the Other Side

There's a phenomenon at cocktail parties where the person you're talking to darts his eyes around the room in search of someone more interesting, powerful, or famous. The guy is asking himself the question: Can I do better?

This is the same question that lurks in the minds of people in medium to long-term romantic relationships: Can I do better? Am I settling? Could I possibly date or marry someone more attractive, more intelligent, and more compatible overall?

The "grass is always greener on the other side" is the idea that we glorify what we don't have or can't see. When trapped in a long-term commitment, we overestimate the indeterminable opportunity costs.

I believe that in romantic relationships where neither party has significant relationship experience outside their current one, this can-I-do-better question is the most frequent ultimate cause for break-up. (The stated proximate cause usually differs.)

I wonder if the strongest, longest relationships are those that do have an extended break along the way. With a break, both parties can compare being in the relationship to being single or (preferably) to being with someone else. If you do get back together, you have a sense of whether you can in fact do better, or whether what you have going is as good as it gets.

The majority of couples that break up do not get back together; but my theory is that those that do are stronger in the long-run than those which never have the break in the first place.

Port this theory to the professional world. Say you're running GE's leadership development program. Say you hire a top-notch recent college grad, he spends 5-6 years working his way up the ranks, and you're grooming him for a future senior management position. If his career experience with other companies has been minimal, should you send him to work for a totally different organization for two years, and then hire him back at GE, to satisfy his can-I-do-better itch? Should non-competitive companies, with low turnover, in different but related industries, have exchange programs?

Bottom Line: Wondering whether there are brighter pastures on the other side is a source of stress and dissatisfaction for people in long-term commitments. They start scanning the horizon for something better. The commitment is therefore strongest when this curiosity has been satisfied, and they return to the commitment with a better understanding of their real (versus imagined) opportunity costs.

Why is it Interesting to Write About Sex?

In his collection of essays, Wallace Shawn pens one called "Writing About Sex" which has several outstanding nuggets.

Why writing about sex is interesting:

One reason is that sex is shocking. Yes, it's still shocking after all these years. At least, it's shocking to me. Even after all these years, most bourgeois people, including me, still walk around with an image of themselves in their heads that doesn't include — well — that. I'm vaguely aware that while I'm going about my daily round of behavior I'm making use of various mammalian processes, such as breathing, digesting and getting from place to place by hobbling about on the legs we have. But the fact is that when I form a picture of myself, I see myself doing the sorts of things that humans do and only humans do — things like hailing a taxi, going to a restaurant, voting for a candidate in an election, or placing receipts in various piles and adding them up. But if I'm unexpectedly reminded that my soul and body are capable of being swept up in an activity that pigs, flies, wolves, lions, and tigers also engage in, my normal picture of myself is violently disrupted. In other words, consciously, I'm aware that I'm a product of evolution and I'm part of nature. But my unconscious mind is still partially wandering in the early nineteenth century and doesn't know these things yet.

Why sex is both meaningful and meaningless:

Sex is of course an extraordinary meeting place of reality and dream, and it's also — what is not perhaps exactly the same thing — an extraordinary meeting place of the meaningful and the meaningless. The big toe, for example, is one part of the human body, human flesh shaped and constructed in a particular way. The penis is another part of the body, located not too far away from the big toe and built out of fundamentally the same materials. The act of sex, the particular shapes of the penis and the vagina, are the way they are because natural selection has made them that way. There may be an adaptive value to each particular choice that evolution made, but from our point of view as human beings living our lives, the various details present themselves to us as arbitrary. It can only be seen as funny that demagogues give speeches denouncing men who insert their penises into other men's anuses — and then go home to insert their own penises into their wives' vaginas! (One might have thought it obvious that either both of these acts are completely outrageous or neither of them is.) And yet the interplay and permutations of the apparently meaningless, the desire to penetrate anus or vagina, the glimpse of the naked breast, the hope of sexual intercourse or the failure of it, lead to joy, grief, happiness, or desperation for the human creature.

On the sex-less, faithful partnership:

A recent survey of married people in the United States found that when asked the question, "What is very important for a successful marriage?" the quality mentioned most frequently — by 93 percent — was "faithfulness" while "happy sexual relationship" came in with only 70 percent. In other words, to 23 percent of the respondents, it seemed more important that they and their partner should not have sex with others than that they themselves should enjoy sex.

On why nudity would disrupt the NYT's mission to present a world not ideal but still good enough:

My local newspaper, the New York Times, for example, does not include images of naked people. Many of its readers might enjoy it much more if it did, but those same readers still might not buy it if such images were in it, because it could no longer present the portrait of a normal, stable, adequate world — a world not ideal but still good enough — which it is the function of the Times to present every day. Nudity somehow implies that anything could happen, but the Times is committed to telling its readers that many things will not happen, because the world is under control, benevolent people are looking out for us, the situation is not as bad as we tend to think, and although problems do exist, they can be solved by wise rulers. The contemplation of nudity or sex could tend to bring up the alarming idea that at any moment human passions might rise up and topple the world as we know.

On the humanizing effect of being reminded of our leaders' sexuality:

Sex can be a humbling, equalizing force. It's often noted that naked people do not wear medals, and weapons are forbidden inside the pleasure garden. When the sexuality of the terrifying people we call "our leaders" is for some reason revealed, they lose some of their power — sometimes all of it — because we're reminded (and, strangely, we need reminding) that they are merely creatures like the ordinary worm or beetle that creeps along at the edge of the pond. Sex really is a nation of its own. Those whose allegiance is given to sex at a certain moment withdraw their loyalty temporarily from other powers. It's a symbol of the possibility that we might all defect for one reason or another from the obedient columns in which we march.

[via Harper's]

Unconventional, Entrepreneurial Lives and the Challenge of Loneliness

Loneliness

I think about entrepreneurship in broad terms — as more a life idea than a business one. Jim Collins has said that people who lead entrepreneurial lives — in my book I call them “life entrepreneurs” — reject the paint-by-numbers approach, take out their own blank white canvas, and try to paint a masterpiece. He says, “Try to create a life so idiosyncratically you that it fits you like a glove.”

Chris Guillbeau, on his excellent blog The Art of Non-Conventional Living, casts entrepreneurship in a similar light. He defines “non-conformity” as “a lack of orthodoxy in thoughts or beliefs” or “the refusal to accept established customs, attitudes, or ideas.” Tim Ferriss is another champion of rejecting the 9-to-5 grind and finding work that is fun, meaningful and maximizes freedom to travel and accumulate new experiences.

These philosophies have much to recommend it, even beyond the obvious. For example, as I’ve written, one way to reduce jealousness of other people — one way to stave off the kind of envy that can consume high achievers — is to create a life so unique to you that it destroys reasonable comparisons. Conventional life paths are crowded with others, and there will always be someone of equal age or background walking ahead of you. Walk alone on your own path, and direct comparisons become harder. Envy goes down, genuine happiness for others’ achievements goes up, and success and progress becomes more about achieving individually defined goals and less about keeping up with the Joneses.

But for all the rah-rah-rah, there are serious, under-discussed challenges with an idiosyncratic, comparison-destroying life. The first has to do with motivation. If the will to advance your situation comes only from the guy who’s a few inches in front of you, you’re screwed, since there will be fewer obvious peers who can directly push you to be all you can be. (Anyone in law or medical school, by contrast, has a million peers with whom he can relate and feel challenged.) So you gotta be a self-starter or otherwise intrinsically driven.

The second more serious challenge relates to emotional relationships. Walking on your own path means…you are walking alone. It’s hard to become close to people, primarily because shared experiences are the lifeblood of relationships, and if you’re leading a non-conventional, non 9-5 life you’re probably accumulating unique experiences. Fewer people can understand why you do the things you do. You feel misunderstood, which is problematic because as social creatures we seem to spend most of our time trying to be understood — trying to express what’s inside our head. Many late night ice-cream binge sessions start with the feeling that nobody “gets us.” You feel lonely.

In his book Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, John Cacioppo says, “Loneliness reflects how you feel about your relationships. Depression reflects how you feel, period.” People living entrepreneurial, high-achieving lives struggle to find common ground with others and so struggle with intimate personal relationships and so struggle with loneliness more than most.

I am not a lonely person. But I do have my moments. Everyone does. Regardless of the conventionality of one’s life or strength of relationships, occasional bouts of loneliness might fit under the David Foster Wallace header of “What It’s Like to Be a Fucking Human Being.” Which is to say, it’s universal. Perhaps even timely. Record numbers of Americans say they have no confidante, and record numbers are living alone.

So no shame in talking about it. Here’s how I think about the loneliness challenge at a “strategic” level.

First, in my relationships, I emphasize strong ties over weak ones. There’s not a question in my mind that people with three intimate friends are less lonely than people with eight medium-strength friends. Of course, being young and uncertain, I’m still meeting plenty of new people, planting new seeds, maintaining an infinite-number of (surprisingly rewarding and useful) email-only relationships, and letting some strong-ties fade to make room for new relationships better suited to my evolving self.

Second, I work on becoming a better communicator so I can express myself and what I’m feeling to others, so as to help the process of feeling understood.

Third, just as loneliness and depression differ, so does loneliness and solitude. There is a difference between being alone and feeling alone. I love batches of solitude. I hate loneliness. But I need to remember that much as I love being alone, too much solitude — too much away time from my relationships — can induce loneliness. As A.C. Grayling put it, “Life is all about relationships. By all means sit cross-legged on top of a mountain occasionally. But don’t do it for very long.”

There are also some useful “tactics.” Most basically, I try to stay in touch with people I know. Simple, but without it your relationships will go nowhere. I also talk about the topic with other people to hear how they think about it. Seth Roberts, for example, has a tip he calls “faces in the morning, voices in the afternoon.” When you wake up, try to look at human faces (in-person, on TV, on the computer, or even yourself in the mirror). In the afternoon, listen to the radio or podcasts of humans talking. Listen to voices.

Bottom Line: Unconventional, entrepreneurial lives are not all peaches and cream. Accumulating lots of unique experiences necessarily means you’ll have less overlap with others, making it harder to form intimate bonds, making the challenge of loneliness more acute.

Below the fold are my favorite sentences (direct quotes) from the book Loneliness by John Cacioppo:

Continue reading “Unconventional, Entrepreneurial Lives and the Challenge of Loneliness”

Intellectual Stimulation in Life and Romance

A stab at clarifying my thinking on this topic:

1. Many smart people with high IQs are not intellectually stimulating.

2. What makes someone stimulating and not just smart? For starters, curiosity and interdisciplinary thinking.

3. There is a difference between someone who intellectually stimulates you and someone who intellectually challenges you. I know someone is stimulating me if I am developing new theories or evolving current ones. I know someone is challenging me if I must stand corrected with some frequency.

4. The most rewarding form of stimulation is when you are pushed and challenged on topics of strength. Sure, I know nothing about cooking, and could probably be stimulated on that topic, along with a million other topics for which I posses zero knowledge. But that wouldn't as exciting as being pushed on a topic where I am already ahead of the curve.

5. In romantic partners, I seek a woman who's stimulatable — someone who is interested. I will be happy if I marry a woman who is very interested in the world, interested in my ideas, and has ideas of her own. Plus all that other (more) important stuff. I do not feel like she has to intellectually challenge me per se on my points of strength; complementary strengths, or non-overlapping strengths, seems like the most workable romantic arrangement. After all, many "power couples" who challenge each other in the same way on the same things do not last very long.

6. Intellectual stimulation is not the be all end all. Other things matter more in relationships and in life. The question, "Do I have fun when I'm with this person?" to me matters more than anything in both friendship and romance, and the fun litmus-test is paramount in life more generally.

(thanks to Steve Dodson for helping me think this through)

Four Personality Types and Romance

In her latest piece in the Atlantic, Sandra Tsing Loh writes with customary brio about her infidelity and the subsequent dissolution of her marriage. Along the way she talks about the romantic compatibility of four basic personality types:

Why Him? Why Her? explains the hormonal forces that trigger humans to be romantically attracted to some people and not to others (a phenomenon also documented in the animal world). Fisher [the author] posits that each of us gets dosed in the womb with different levels of hormones that impel us toward one of four basic personality types:

The Explorer—the libidinous, creative adventurer who acts “on the spur of the moment.” Operative neurochemical: dopamine.

The Builder—the much calmer person who has “traditional values.” The Builder also “would rather have loyal friends than interesting friends,” enjoys routines, and places a high priority on taking care of his or her possessions. Operative neurotransmitter: serotonin.

The Director—the “analytical and logical” thinker who enjoys a good argument. The Director wants to discover all the features of his or her new camera or computer. Operative hormone: testosterone.

The Negotiator—the touchy-feely communicator who imagines “both wonderful and horrible things happening” to him- or herself. Operative hormone: estrogen, then oxytocin.

Fisher reviewed personality data from 39,913 members of Chemistry.com. Explorers made up 26 percent of the sample, Builders 28.6 percent, Directors 16.3 percent, Negotiators 29.1 percent. While Explorers tend to be attracted to Explorers, and Builders tend to be attracted to Builders, Directors are attracted to Negotiators, and vice versa…. Explorer-Explorer tends to be one of the most unstable combinations, whereas Fisher suspects “most of the world’s fifty-year marriages are made by Builders who marry other Builders.”

Interesting stuff. If I had to be boxed in one of the above labels it would probably be Director. I agree that the most explosive combination (in a bad way) tends to be Explorers with Explorers.

###

Elsewhere in the world of love and romance, the always-worthwhile Meghan O’Rourke reviews a new book that makes the case for passionate, obsessive love. Why subordinate passion to reason? What’s so wrong with being madly, crazily in love? The author advises: “Let go of security and embrace the radical alertness that comes with the fullness of feeling.” Hmm.

O’Rourke concludes by challenging the traditional definition of successful relationships (longevity):

Nehring’s paean to unconventional ecstasy is a bracing reminder of how narrow and orthodox our vision of love has become—and how that in turn bequeaths us a vast swathe of “unsuccessful” relationships. Most of us know more single mothers and unmarried partners than ever, yet we still think of relationships as goal-oriented, and that goal is conventional: until death do us part. Since when are longevity and frictionlessness, Nehring prompts us to ask, themselves a sign of “success”? The equitable marriage is a worthy goal, but it is hardly uncomplicated. Just consider the recent AOL Living and Woman’s Day study that showed 72 percent of women have debated leaving their husbands. Only we can judge how a relationship changes us—what new spaces open up inside ourselves, or how a turbulent encounter may enlarge our view of human nature, as it did for Heloise.