4 ms·

Investment in time, resources, the integrity of ones lower back when some one needs help moving... I think people are uncomfortable with the consideration that

Investment in time, resources, the integrity of ones lower back when some one needs help moving... I think people are uncomfortable with the consideration that things are transactional. We'd rather pretend they aren't, even though we all know that they are.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
My guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. And the word carries different connotations for different folks. My SO would probably be horrified if I said our marriage was 'transactional', and she has a language arts degree.
- deciplex 3y ago
  > My guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. If two people do not treat their relationship as transactional, then it is not transactional. I don't know how to make this any simpler: at least one counterparty has to, at least, agree to the notion of "transaction" entering into the interaction in the first place, for a transaction to be taking place (and, I think, it could be argued that both counterparties must approach it this way). If they don't, then there is no transaction. You seem to regard the idea of transactions as something fundamental to all human behavior, like a law of physics. This is not the case.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Perhaps what you propose is possible, especially if the definition of transactional is strictly monetary. Yet everyone gives and receives in relationships; even if what is exchanged is only emotional, time, or otherwise intangible. We all do some calculating, often subconsciously, about whether to continue to interact with someone else. And we have various thresholds or red lines which could lead to ending or at least significantly reducing future contact.
    - deciplex 3y ago
      Sure, but the definition of "transactional" must be expanded to such a degree for the statement "human relationships are transactional" to be true, that the word ceases to have any real linguistic function. You might as well say "human relationships are defined by how people relate to one another." And indeed, this is usually how such discussions about this topic proceed, with someone opening with the narrow definition of "transaction" - not necessarily monetary, of course, but at least two well-defined sets of things that two people intend to trade (and where a withholding from one party would result in a cancellation of the deal) - and then as you point out more and more human behaviors that don't work like this, they retreat to the point where, for example, a parent taking their child out for ice cream is a "transaction" because the child wanted ice cream and the parent wanted to do something nice for their child. If that's your working definition of "transaction" then fine for you, but you can't then make some argument that it's neoliberal economics that best reflect human nature and fulfill human needs because of its insistence that all economic activity be mediated by a free market (i.e. a forum supposedly for the free and open proposal and settlement of transactions). The "transaction" of one, is not the "transaction" of the other: neoliberalism and indeed capitalism itself would not work even by their own internal logic if they assumed the same notion of "transaction" as that required of the statement "all human relationships are transactional."
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Fair point, and in hindsight my comment failed to frame things as precisely as I'd hoped. I'll agree that transactional can become overly broad, to the point of losing its meaning. Though I do think the lense of economics can offer a unique way of evaluating about relationships. And not in a strictly financial sense. Which isn't to say it's the only way, or even the most important.
- apazzy 3y ago
  Would you consider a parental relationship to be transactional? There is a huge potential for the relationship to be negative - a child with special needs / medical bills, a child with views so different from yours it causes a huge rift, etc. What positive return is guaranteed that makes these relationships beneficial? There are plenty of living beings who yeet their young out to live on their own from the start. Or is every parent either throwing away their time/money/effort on a losing transaction? Is it a gamble for those who are poor, that their children will take care of them? What does that mean for rich people and their children? For extremely wealthy people, who can buy everything they ever need/want, is it solely a gamble that your child will want to spend time with you?
  - jdasdf 3y ago
    >What positive return is guaranteed that makes these relationships beneficial? Why do you believe that guarantees are required? Or even that the return must be positive?
    - apazzy 3y ago
      I don't believe it, I also don't treat/consider relationships as transactional. My argument is that if these relationships are transactional, there should be an obvious benefit otherwise most people would consider the potential gain to be too risky and not have these relationships.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        People are likely subconsciously or otherwise doing the math. I had to take some calculated risks having kids because of some family history. And when folks get genetic testing, or abstain altogether, they too are weighing possible outcomes. 'Transactional' doesn't have to mean a perfectly balanced exchange or in kind. For some just a bit of acknowledgement is worth millions of dollars and/or years of sacrifice. For others they're never satisfied and forever feel cheated or unhappy with how they see things "balancing out" or failing to.
slowmovintarget 3y ago
No, we don't all know that they are, because they aren't that. Transactions are the signals for building trust, but they aren't the only components in the relationship. Shared history, shared vocabulary, commitments built on that that trust... These are not just transactions. It's like saying that "we hate to admit it, but all the company really is is the emails and Slack messages the employees send to each other." It's not that simple.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

My guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. And the word carries different connotations for different folks. My SO would probably be horrified if I said our marriage was 'transactional', and she has a language arts degree.

deciplex 3y ago
> My guess is that many people don't consciously acknowledge relationships are transactional. If two people do not treat their relationship as transactional, then it is not transactional. I don't know how to make this any simpler: at least one counterparty has to, at least, agree to the notion of "transaction" entering into the interaction in the first place, for a transaction to be taking place (and, I think, it could be argued that both counterparties must approach it this way). If they don't, then there is no transaction. You seem to regard the idea of transactions as something fundamental to all human behavior, like a law of physics. This is not the case.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Perhaps what you propose is possible, especially if the definition of transactional is strictly monetary. Yet everyone gives and receives in relationships; even if what is exchanged is only emotional, time, or otherwise intangible. We all do some calculating, often subconsciously, about whether to continue to interact with someone else. And we have various thresholds or red lines which could lead to ending or at least significantly reducing future contact.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    Sure, but the definition of "transactional" must be expanded to such a degree for the statement "human relationships are transactional" to be true, that the word ceases to have any real linguistic function. You might as well say "human relationships are defined by how people relate to one another." And indeed, this is usually how such discussions about this topic proceed, with someone opening with the narrow definition of "transaction" - not necessarily monetary, of course, but at least two well-defined sets of things that two people intend to trade (and where a withholding from one party would result in a cancellation of the deal) - and then as you point out more and more human behaviors that don't work like this, they retreat to the point where, for example, a parent taking their child out for ice cream is a "transaction" because the child wanted ice cream and the parent wanted to do something nice for their child. If that's your working definition of "transaction" then fine for you, but you can't then make some argument that it's neoliberal economics that best reflect human nature and fulfill human needs because of its insistence that all economic activity be mediated by a free market (i.e. a forum supposedly for the free and open proposal and settlement of transactions). The "transaction" of one, is not the "transaction" of the other: neoliberalism and indeed capitalism itself would not work even by their own internal logic if they assumed the same notion of "transaction" as that required of the statement "all human relationships are transactional."
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Fair point, and in hindsight my comment failed to frame things as precisely as I'd hoped. I'll agree that transactional can become overly broad, to the point of losing its meaning. Though I do think the lense of economics can offer a unique way of evaluating about relationships. And not in a strictly financial sense. Which isn't to say it's the only way, or even the most important.
apazzy 3y ago
Would you consider a parental relationship to be transactional? There is a huge potential for the relationship to be negative - a child with special needs / medical bills, a child with views so different from yours it causes a huge rift, etc. What positive return is guaranteed that makes these relationships beneficial? There are plenty of living beings who yeet their young out to live on their own from the start. Or is every parent either throwing away their time/money/effort on a losing transaction? Is it a gamble for those who are poor, that their children will take care of them? What does that mean for rich people and their children? For extremely wealthy people, who can buy everything they ever need/want, is it solely a gamble that your child will want to spend time with you?
- jdasdf 3y ago
  >What positive return is guaranteed that makes these relationships beneficial? Why do you believe that guarantees are required? Or even that the return must be positive?
  - apazzy 3y ago
    I don't believe it, I also don't treat/consider relationships as transactional. My argument is that if these relationships are transactional, there should be an obvious benefit otherwise most people would consider the potential gain to be too risky and not have these relationships.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      People are likely subconsciously or otherwise doing the math. I had to take some calculated risks having kids because of some family history. And when folks get genetic testing, or abstain altogether, they too are weighing possible outcomes. 'Transactional' doesn't have to mean a perfectly balanced exchange or in kind. For some just a bit of acknowledgement is worth millions of dollars and/or years of sacrifice. For others they're never satisfied and forever feel cheated or unhappy with how they see things "balancing out" or failing to.

slowmovintarget 3y ago

No, we don't all know that they are, because they aren't that. Transactions are the signals for building trust, but they aren't the only components in the relationship. Shared history, shared vocabulary, commitments built on that that trust... These are not just transactions. It's like saying that "we hate to admit it, but all the company really is is the emails and Slack messages the employees send to each other." It's not that simple.