Discussion Expectations in Relationships.

[Forever Sleep]

Do you think we can form strong relationships/friendships without having expectations of people? Surely, trust depends on having an expectation that a person will or won't behave in a particular way. But then, is it right to have expectations of people?

I remember having a conversation with a lady at work. At the time, and I can't even remember the details but, something must have happened to make me doubt my friendship with someone. I must have said that it was unwise to have relied on them and my colleague replied that we shouldn't rely/ have expectations on others and they shouldn't rely or have expectations on us in return. It seemed kind of cold at the time but I realised it was the only way not to get hurt or let down.

Maybe there are relationships where you can have expectations of one another. Marriage is pretty much an agreement that you're going to act in some ways and not others. Parents I feel should be expected to support their children- they brought them in to all this after all. Should children be expected to then support their parents? I guess the ideal is that they love them enough to want to but, should it be expected? I think some parents have children for this purpose almost. Like paying in insurance when they're young and helpless- hoping they will then return the favour when their parents become old and helpless.

I think in friendships, it's more based on hope. We hope that if we are kind, supportive and generous with people that we can expect to receive the same back.

What are your thoughts and experiences on this? Do you expect a lot of the people in your life? Have they lived up to that? Have they let you down? Have you ever thought your expectations of others or, those placed on you were unreasonable? Maybe the worst of it is when you feel expectations placed on you- which you fulfilled but, when it comes round to them helping you, they don't. Kind of lopsided relationships/friendships.

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

If you expect your cat to mow your lawn, or for a rose bush to support the treehouse you've always wanted to build, you'll find yourself disappointed.

I am far from an authority when it comes to any kind of relationship except the one you have with yourself and my brain is unhealthy but I have a paranoia about people's intentions. I don't want people to lie or pretend just to get closer to me. I find that if you're getting to know someone and you tell them what your expectations are upfront, they can simply pretend to be all of those things until they get what they want.

There's this quote I came across once that stuck with me. It went something like, "Let people do what they want to do so you can see what they'd rather do."
Give people the freedom to be who they are without expectations and then decide if who they are as a person by default is who you want to be around. Then it's not quid pro quo that they're supportive to you because you were supportive first. They're supportive because that's just who they are. And if they're not, you already know so you won't get your feelings hurt by tying to build a treehouse on a rose.

When there are no expectations, you know that everything a person does is because they want to do it, not because they have to. And I don't know why but that has always been important to me.

 

[foreverfalling]

I think it's unavoidable to have expectations. All relationships are transactional, if there's nothing someone wants then why would there be a relationship in the first place? Even in the case of being in a relationship with someone doing what they want to do because they want to, that then becomes your expectation that they continue doing so, and there's nothing stopping the other person from changing.

Yes I've experienced giving myself and the friendship turning lopsided. At first I thought I was being a good friend and not putting high expectations on the other side, that good friend didn't need to keep track of favors. But I was getting less and less in return, and all of a sudden felt 'taken advantage' of. We always keep track, it's in our nature as humans. Why would we expend our resources for nothing in return?

 

[Pluto]

 

[alienfreak]

I do my best to keep my expectations low but somehow I still end up disappointed. I think it is unavoidable. In order to function, we need to try to make models in our minds of what other people will likely do. I think it could be argued that the main function of our intelligence is to predict the future with models like this, so we can make better actions that will increase our chances of survival. Models are always wrong and I suppose we shoudn't blame other people for being too complex for us to predict. I can't even predict myself, after all.

Should children be expected to then support their parents? I guess the ideal is that they love them enough to want to but, should it be expected? I think some parents have children for this purpose almost. Like paying in insurance when they're young and helpless- hoping they will then return the favour when their parents become old and helpless.

My mother was like this. She worried for me because i didnt have children to take care of me when im old. I have essentially abandoned her, though she still has my sibling. I felt it was wrong and upsetting that she had that expectation of me, like I was brought into the world for her selfish reasons.

There's this quote I came across once that stuck with me. It went something like, "Let people do what they want to do so you can see what they'd rather do."

When there are no expectations, you know that everything a person does is because they want to do it, not because they have to. And I don't know why but that has always been important to me.

This was helpful for me, thanks

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

All relationships are transactional, if there's nothing someone wants then why would there be a relationship in the first place?

This is something I've been thinking about and I can't say that I agree. I used to believe this myself so I understand the sentiment but I find that if you keep digging, there are distinctions that can be made.

A transaction is an exchange. It works when we want different things. I give you money, you give me bread etc. These relationships absolutely exist.

But there are also collaborative relationships. We exchange nothing, but together we are able to accomplish something that neither of us could on our own, or even simply wanting the same thing. You bring the console, I bring the tv, now we can play videogames together. I have a hard time classifying this as a transaction because by definition it isn't. Is that too pedantic?

In the latter half, I do agree. If two people for whatever reason are inspired by nothing in the other, they'd probably both spend their time better elsewhere.


As far as giving too much and feeling taken advantage of.
In my mind I always sort of see it as taking a walk with a friend. If we go walking together and I'm walking too fast and my friend is out of breath, I don't get mad and tell them to go faster than they're able. I also don't leave them behind. I adjust my own speed to accommodate them. If they want to stop and smell the roses we can do that. If I am giving to a friend and they are unwilling or unable to give back, I don't get mad. I just adjust my own speed when I walk with them. If I want to go faster, I'll go alone instead of asking them to join me, or with another friend that can keep up.

 

[Ashu]

This is something I've been thinking about and I can't say that I agree. I used to believe this myself so I understand the sentiment but I find that if you keep digging, there are distinctions that can be made.

A transaction is an exchange. It works when we want different things. I give you money, you give me bread etc. These relationships absolutely exist.

But there are also collaborative relationships. We exchange nothing, but together we are able to accomplish something that neither of us could on our own, or even simply wanting the same thing. You bring the console, I bring the tv, now we can play videogames together. I have a hard time classifying this as a transaction because by definition it isn't. Is that too pedantic?

I think so, yes.

 

[-nobodyknows-]

You bring the console, I bring the tv, now we can play videogames together.

I really like this

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I'd expect someone I'm in a relationship with to like me, which is already too much to ask.

 

[foreverfalling]

But there are also collaborative relationships. We exchange nothing, but together we are able to accomplish something that neither of us could on our own, or even simply wanting the same thing. You bring the console, I bring the tv, now we can play videogames together. I have a hard time classifying this as a transaction because by definition it isn't. Is that too pedantic?

The fact that both people have the same want or goal makes it no less of a transaction to me. If I had no console, there would be no relationship, we would only play video games if I bring a console. That is the transaction. We don't want to see it that way as long as the relationship works and both parties bring what is expected in the transaction.

As far as giving too much and feeling taken advantage of.
In my mind I always sort of see it as taking a walk with a friend. If we go walking together and I'm walking too fast and my friend is out of breath, I don't get mad and tell them to go faster than they're able. I also don't leave them behind. I adjust my own speed to accommodate them. If they want to stop and smell the roses we can do that. If I am giving to a friend and they are unwilling or unable to give back, I don't get mad. I just adjust my own speed when I walk with them. If I want to go faster, I'll go alone instead of asking them to join me, or with another friend that can keep up.

This is an example of having no expectations, not trying to meet other's expectations and not being taken advantage of. If I want to go at my own pace I'll go alone, and thus there is no relationship. I think this is where I'm at now, alone because I don't want to try to meet other's expectations, nor do I want to adjust my own speed for them.

Well all this thinking got me thinking about the saying, nothing is either good or bad, it is thinking that makes it so. Relationships are neither pure nor transactional, it is thinking that makes it so.

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

If I had no console, there would be no relationship, we would only play video games if I bring a console. That is the transaction.

Perhaps I am too caught up on the verbiage and it seems like we're having two simultaneous discussions. The first being academic, about whether or not all relationships are transactional, and the other being our lived human experiences.

On the latter I share many of your sentiments. I've lived most of my life alone, I have extremely low social requirements, I am highly resistant (arguably immune) to peer pressure etc. I have never been a social person and I function best on my own. As Sartre once said, "Hell is other people." He wasn't wrong.

But to the former, there is no exchange. I find it impossible to apply the label without meeting this requirement. You seem to define a transaction as participating in the relationship at all. I'm proposing the idea that relationships can exist without an exchange. In fact, there are three major natural types of symbiotic relationships: mutualism, parasitism, and commensalism.

I think the claim that all relationships are transactional is a statement as limited in scope as saying that everything you throw into a river floats.
It is true that if you did not have a console then we would not have a collaborative relationship (sticking to the example), but that does then imply that if you did have one that a transaction took place. For that to have happened I would leave with your console, and you my tv.

I appreciate you having this conversation with me. I find it interesting and it's good for me to hear other people's ideas.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

It's a tricky one. I once read that you should pay your partner or friend in their currency. So if I care about someone, I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what they would want. The difficult part is when you want or expect something of the other person in return and they're not willing/able or even cognizant of doing the same for you.

If you're lucky and the relationship is built on a strong foundation with a desire to reciprocate then things do sort of automatically work out, I find. But there are a lot of damaged people out there - abused, neglected, selfish, entitled, or mentally ill/narcissistic people with a taker's mentality. Because that's a large chunk of humanity these days I think it's important to protect yourself where possible and recognize that there's a good chance you'll be taken advantage of if you enter into something like that.

Ideally there should be an organic give and take that feels comfortable for both parties where neither one is really keeping track. I think it's the only way to feel fulfilled and like the relationship is balanced.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's a tricky one. I once read that you should pay your partner or friend in their currency. So if I care about someone, I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what they would want. The difficult part is when you want or expect something of the other person in return and they're not willing/able or even cognizant of doing the same for you.

If you're lucky and the relationship is built on a strong foundation with a desire to reciprocate then things do sort of automatically work out, I find. But there are a lot of damaged people out there - abused, neglected, selfish, entitled, or mentally ill/narcissistic people with a taker's mentality. Because that's a large chunk of humanity these days I think it's important to protect yourself where possible and recognize that there's a good chance you'll be taken advantage of if you enter into something like that.

Ideally there should be an organic give and take that feels comfortable for both parties where neither one is really keeping track. I think it's the only way to feel fulfilled and like the relationship is balanced.

I absolutely agree with this. I suppose when we 'click' best with people is when it's all fluid and natural. We aren't even entirely aware that there is an exchange going on. Plus- from your first paragraph- to 'give' in their currency- I think that also happens kind of naturally. As the friendship develops, you get to know what they like to talk about and do etc. and I suppose it works best when you like talking about and doing the same things too.

I suppose we have expectations of people in order to protect ourselves though in a way. So- you wouldn't expect someone to steal from you, exploit you or spread malicious rumours about you. It's seems important to be able to recognise when someone is doing those things so we can protect ourselves from further harm. I suppose it relates to the question of whether love should be conditional or unconditional. Conditional love depends on expectations but- perhaps that's wise. Why should people put up with say- an abusive partner?

I suppose there are extremes In either directions. Some people seem to expect so much from others and others will put up with so much terrible behaviour that surely must have defied their expectations.

 

[derpyderpins]

Answering the OP: I'd say everyone should have baseline expectations of everyone else. Namely, you don't harm me if I don't harm you. It's a little silly, but it is an expectation I have when I am introduced to someone that they don't punch me in the face.

From there, expectations grow based on experience, situation, and/or direct communications. I use the metaphor of mini unwritten contracts. (Although sometimes there is writing, or at least spoken words.) At the base of this is our societal unwritten constitution: rules we have somewhat collectively agreed to where braking them comes with consequences. Don't punch me or you go to jail. Don't cheat people or you won't be trusted in the future. Don't cause unnecessary emotional harm, or you'll be left alone/only surrounded by similarly abusive people. That's your baseline, then you raise up the expectations based on circumstances.

Examples:

Work: you get some sort of offer letter. You expect and require a paper trail that you are getting paid. In exchange, your employer expects you do the job in question. There is not much trust here - at least initially and in most cases - it's the type of "transactional" relation that delivers on the poor connotation of the word "transactional."

For your parents example: there is some combination of "constitution" rules that make up why they must take care of their children. If they don't, they are causing unnecessary harm, because they brought these defenseless creatures into existence. Now, once the kid is in its 20s and capable of doing things for itself but refusing to, it becomes a grey area. The rules are open to interpretation, and we're all judging how others interpret the rules.

For kids: I personally think it's conditional if they should feel an obligation to take care of their parents. (Put another way, that said expectation on the part of the parents is reasonable.) Did they go above the bare minimum? (Keep you fed, sheltered, and alive with minimal trauma; put you in a position to launch successfully.) For example, where they always there for you as an adult? Did you call your parents when you were in your 20s and needed help with something, and they would always do what they could? You get my point. After 18-21, I think parents and children are like any other relationship, just with a headstart. There's an expectation that you pay people back, but because we expect parents to do the bare minimum, that is not something that requires repayment.

Friends and Romance: I lump these together because they work similarly. We start with the baseline. Then we meet and talk, get to know each other. If that interaction was positive for both of us, that was some goodness that was produced that we both want to "pay back" on a prediction (not expectation) that more could come. Then, as the good increases, we both value the relationship more, because we are getting more good from it, so we are okay with mutually raising the expectations. A lot of this is contextual: I know you don't like X, so I won't do it, or you like Y, so I'll try to do it, with the expectation that you will do something (not necessarily a straight trade) which will in a sense justify what I did. This can be simple: you like to vent, so I let you and actively listen; I like bowling so you go with me every couple weeks. Maybe we both like bowling, in which case double win!

I think that leads to an important point: relationships are transactional, but they don't have to be perfect 1:1 trades. Moreso, as we fulfill these unwritten contracts, we have a shared bank account that we are depositing into for the other to withdraw. There can be a balance. Consider this series:

I listen to you vent, which is worth 5 "points" of utility to you, but it's kinda a pain honestly and drains 3 from me. You: 5 | Me: -3. Total +2​

I left something important at home and you pick it up for me. Call it 10 for me but -4 for you. You: 1 | Me: 7. Total +8.​

We both have stressful days and have a disagreement, -5 for both of us. You: -4 | Me: 2. Total -2.​

I throw you a great birthday party. +10 for you. It was a lot of work for me, but I enjoyed it, call it +2. You: 6 | Me: 4. Total +10.​

​

Let's now say we're friends for a while at this pace. We get to You: 60 | Me: 40. Take time to consider that even though you've benefitted more, I've also benefitted. The discrepancy is not so much that I should feel cheated. I'm up big! We even have a nice reserve of 100 total. We also now have enough data to anticipate what types of gains should continue to come. Yes, there will be up and downs, but this seems like a good 'investment,' justifying living up to expectations.​

​

Now let's say we have a huge fight. We could sustain a good bit with our savings. If it's a -30 for each of us, it is worthwhile to try to get back on the previous pace. Redefine expectations for our mutual benefit and get back as close to our usual as possible.​

​

But what if the fight was -50? Now it's You: 10 | Me: -10. I might decide, "you know what, I have an expectation that they do something extra to make up this difference, else I'm taking my friendship 'business' elsewhere."​

​

Of course, it doesn't really work with numbers. It's all subjective to an extent. But we make these types of judgments in abstract strokes as we deal with people.

I do have pretty high expectations for my close friends/wife, of course, but I know at this point that they meet them with ease. I also don't even get upset if they come up short sometimes, because there is so much good will there. And I think both parties want to do much better than those expectations anyway, so they rarely come into play once you are very close.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Answering the OP: I'd say everyone should have baseline expectations of everyone else. Namely, you don't harm me if I don't harm you. It's a little silly, but it is an expectation I have when I am introduced to someone that they don't punch me in the face.

From there, expectations grow based on experience, situation, and/or direct communications. I use the metaphor of mini unwritten contracts. (Although sometimes there is writing, or at least spoken words.) At the base of this is our societal unwritten constitution: rules we have somewhat collectively agreed to where braking them comes with consequences. Don't punch me or you go to jail. Don't cheat people or you won't be trusted in the future. Don't cause unnecessary emotional harm, or you'll be left alone/only surrounded by similarly abusive people. That's your baseline, then you raise up the expectations based on circumstances.

Examples:

Work: you get some sort of offer letter. You expect and require a paper trail that you are getting paid. In exchange, your employer expects you do the job in question. There is not much trust here - at least initially and in most cases - it's the type of "transactional" relation that delivers on the poor connotation of the word "transactional."

For your parents example: there is some combination of "constitution" rules that make up why they must take care of their children. If they don't, they are causing unnecessary harm, because they brought these defenseless creatures into existence. Now, once the kid is in its 20s and capable of doing things for itself but refusing to, it becomes a grey area. The rules are open to interpretation, and we're all judging how others interpret the rules.

For kids: I personally think it's conditional if they should feel an obligation to take care of their parents. (Put another way, that said expectation on the part of the parents is reasonable.) Did they go above the bare minimum? (Keep you fed, sheltered, and alive with minimal trauma; put you in a position to launch successfully.) For example, where they always there for you as an adult? Did you call your parents when you were in your 20s and needed help with something, and they would always do what they could? You get my point. After 18-21, I think parents and children are like any other relationship, just with a headstart. There's an expectation that you pay people back, but because we expect parents to do the bare minimum, that is not something that requires repayment.

Friends and Romance: I lump these together because they work similarly. We start with the baseline. Then we meet and talk, get to know each other. If that interaction was positive for both of us, that was some goodness that was produced that we both want to "pay back" on a prediction (not expectation) that more could come. Then, as the good increases, we both value the relationship more, because we are getting more good from it, so we are okay with mutually raising the expectations. A lot of this is contextual: I know you don't like X, so I won't do it, or you like Y, so I'll try to do it, with the expectation that you will do something (not necessarily a straight trade) which will in a sense justify what I did. This can be simple: you like to vent, so I let you and actively listen; I like bowling so you go with me every couple weeks. Maybe we both like bowling, in which case double win!

I think that leads to an important point: relationships are transactional, but they don't have to be perfect 1:1 trades. Moreso, as we fulfill these unwritten contracts, we have a shared bank account that we are depositing into for the other to withdraw. There can be a balance. Consider this series:

I listen to you vent, which is worth 5 "points" of utility to you, but it's kinda a pain honestly and drains 3 from me. You: 5 | Me: -3. Total +2
I left something important at home and you pick it up for me. Call it 10 for me but -4 for you. You: 1 | Me: 7. Total +8.
We both have stressful days and have a disagreement, -5 for both of us. You: -4 | Me: 2. Total -2.
I throw you a great birthday party. +10 for you. It was a lot of work for me, but I enjoyed it, call it +2. You: 6 | Me: 4. Total +10.

Let's now say we're friends for a while at this pace. We get to You: 60 | Me: 40. Take time to consider that even though you've benefitted more, I've also benefitted. The discrepancy is not so much that I should feel cheated. I'm up big! We even have a nice reserve of 100 total. We also now have enough data to anticipate what types of gains should continue to come. Yes, there will be up and downs, but this seems like a good 'investment,' justifying living up to expectations.

Now let's say we have a huge fight. We could sustain a good bit with our savings. If it's a -30 for each of us, it is worthwhile to try to get back on the previous pace. Redefine expectations for our mutual benefit and get back as close to our usual as possible.

But what if the fight was -50? Now it's You: 10 | Me: -10. I might decide, "you know what, I have an expectation that they do something extra to make up this difference, else I'm taking my friendship 'business' elsewhere."
​

Of course, it doesn't really work with numbers. It's all subjective to an extent. But we make these types of judgments in abstract strokes as we deal with people.

I do have pretty high expectations for my close friends/wife, of course, but I know at this point that they meet them with ease. I also don't even get upset if they come up short sometimes, because there is so much good will there. And I think both parties want to do much better than those expectations anyway, so they rarely come into play once you are very close.

I agree with a lot of your points. I think- regarding the last paragraph concerning high expectations, I'd definitely agree that- knowing someone so well- trust I suppose, we probably are more willing to forgive off days where they perhaps do something to upset us because- they were under pressure or, we were and didn't have the patience to let it go.

I also think it depends on our overall 'need' to be social though. I think I probably do have high expectations of people too. Not in terms of- I expect them to do things for me but, I like friendships to be sincere. I'm not a fan of 'fair weather friends.'

Kind of reminds me of something someone told me once about horses. Their wife used to work with them a lot. He said- because they are social creatures, it's not all that fair to keep one on it's own. That a horse would prefer to share with a horse it hated than to be on its own! I wonder if some people are like that. They'll put up with people who aren't even all that pleasant, just so they're not alone. I've never really understood that but then, I don't feel the same need to be social I suppose- in real life anyway.

 

[derpyderpins]

I agree with a lot of your points. I think- regarding the last paragraph concerning high expectations, I'd definitely agree that- knowing someone so well- trust I suppose, we probably are more willing to forgive off days where they perhaps do something to upset us because- they were under pressure or, we were and didn't have the patience to let it go.

I also think it depends on our overall 'need' to be social though. I think I probably do have high expectations of people too. Not in terms of- I expect them to do things for me but, I like friendships to be sincere. I'm not a fan of 'fair weather friends.'

People have different needs and capacities for sure. I'm really down to about 3 irl people (including my wife) plus this forum (generally) as fulfilling all my social needs. And once those are met you can be pickier! When I was younger I felt I needed more friends all the time.

Kind of reminds me of something someone told me once about horses. Their wife used to work with them a lot. He said- because they are social creatures, it's not all that fair to keep one on it's own. That a horse would prefer to share with a horse it hated than to be on its own! I wonder if some people are like that. They'll put up with people who aren't even all that pleasant, just so they're not alone. I've never really understood that but then, I don't feel the same need to be social I suppose- in real life anyway.

I like that expression about the horses, I hadn't heard that before. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will maintain relationships with outright bad people. I guess you could think of it like if you're hungry you're willing to eat anything, and once you have a food source - even if it's awful quality - it's hard to leave it for fear of going hungry again. Even people who generally don't have high social needs will fall into this if they get a sort of validation they aren't getting elsewhere.

 

[lamargue]

i don't have the energy to add what hasn't already been explicated by others here. but yes, relationships are contractual, so naturally expectations will generate certain imperatives and obligations which, if not fulfilled, will lead to dissatisfaction and eventual collapse. but usually if you are in a position where you can enter into a contract, it's probably likely that you already pass, or that you don't hold anything that would disqualify you from the outset. relationships are social proofs, which means that these aforementioned imperatives and obligations take on a more material flavour, with the generation of perceived obligations being offset by dependent social wants; this probably bleeds into both social and sexual expectations that are inherent in a relationship, as evinced by internet redpill gurus who sell a datum or two to shoehorn their turgid dating bromides, all of which arise from the fact that their expectations have contractually permitted and given voice to an equal amount of apathy and 'self-love', a growing problem in modern dating culture. that's the root of hypergamy, and the reason why relationships can never be truly egalitarian

people will oftentimes try to palliate their standards by claiming that they just want a person who can meet a limiting, unobtrusive criterion for attraction; this is a lie, and there are underlying norms which dictate the degree to which an individual who seek to build their relationship, predicated on both social and sexual needs of an individual. if a person feels obligated toward a need, chances are that they expect this to be fulfilled from all partners who they deem desirable; and if not, then this encroaches upon their expectations, forcing them to re-evaluate their screening procedure in future mates

 

[foreverfalling]

But to the former, there is no exchange. I find it impossible to apply the label without meeting this requirement. You seem to define a transaction as participating in the relationship at all. I'm proposing the idea that relationships can exist without an exchange. In fact, there are three major natural types of symbiotic relationships: mutualism, parasitism, and commensalism.

Thank you for this exchange as well (no pun). It got me thinking over night about it, and I also started thinking about the different types of natural relationships, symbiotic and parasitic, with the console example being a symbiotic type.

In the console example, you define that there is no exchange because you both left without materially exchanging anything. But what is exchanged is not material. You bring the console and give the other person the privilege of using it, in exchange for playing the video game together. If you just bring the console and not let the other person use it, the other person would probably be very uninterested.

Ultimately it goes back again to "thinking makes it so", and is where I feel different to many people, often wanting to be pedantic and mathematical about what I'm talking about. Some people believe in love, while some others don't. Like asking why will never get you anywhere, because you can keep going as deep as you want to go.

I absolutely agree with this. I suppose when we 'click' best with people is when it's all fluid and natural. We aren't even entirely aware that there is an exchange going on.

I think this describes it. At the end of the day, it is an exchange, but you are just not aware of it, and it may be best not to break the illusion through trauma and bad experiences.

 

[lamargue]

But there are also collaborative relationships. We exchange nothing, but together we are able to accomplish something that neither of us could on our own, or even simply wanting the same thing. You bring the console, I bring the tv, now we can play videogames together. I have a hard time classifying this as a transaction because by definition it isn't. Is that too pedantic?

bringing the console is an imperative, and not some collaborative gesture. the fact that we can play videogames together is a proof of the relationship, and not a declarative statement on the nonexistence of an exchange; exchanges don't have to be material. if everyone around me is playing videogames, with their partners complementing whatever they bring, then it isn't too troubling for my partner to expect that i complement what they bring (a console or television) so that we can play videogames together, an obligation which i am consigned to as soon as i enter into the contract that is a relationship

 

[Forever Sleep]

Thank you for this exchange as well (no pun). It got me thinking over night about it, and I also started thinking about the different types of natural relationships, symbiotic and parasitic, with the console example being a symbiotic type.

In the console example, you define that there is no exchange because you both left without materially exchanging anything. But what is exchanged is not material. You bring the console and give the other person the privilege of using it, in exchange for playing the video game together. If you just bring the console and not let the other person use it, the other person would probably be very uninterested.

Ultimately it goes back again to "thinking makes it so", and is where I feel different to many people, often wanting to be pedantic and mathematical about what I'm talking about. Some people believe in love, while some others don't. Like asking why will never get you anywhere, because you can keep going as deep as you want to go.

I think this describes it. At the end of the day, it is an exchange, but you are just not aware of it, and it may be best not to break the illusion through trauma and bad experiences.

The video game console example was a really interesting one. If we ran a little further with it though- we likely would start to run into 'exchange' territory. We're assuming both people want to play the same game. What if they don't? What if they both want to play as the same character but, can't? They may take it in turns to play what they want to and who they want to play as. Or, one may be more generous than the other and let the other person choose or they may be more dominant and take over.

I remember going to friend's houses as a child and being so grateful that they sat back and let me play their games because I didn't have a console at the time.

That in itself can be an exchange though. Sometimes we give because we know it will make the other person happy and feel gratitude/ love for us- which is a nice feeling. There's that whole- 'there's no such thing as a purely altruistic act'- people for example give to charity perhaps in part because it makes them feel good.