341. Interaction Style, Influence and the Predominant Motivational Force

Interaction Style, Influence and the Predominant Motivational Force

There are three major determinants of human behavior:

1. Consequencity, which I have already described in entries 338 and 339
2. Social and environmental external influences, their impact depending upon the innate gullibility.
3. Instinctive urges, not only those directly and indirectly connected with procreation, but also hedonistic selfish urges of any kind.

Usually, each of these motivational forces leads or can lead to different, often contradictory behaviors.   Therefore people may experience internal conflicts prior to acting, but the visible behavior is determined by the strongest of these forces. Which force dominates the behavior is innate and a part of the personality.  

The sharing, agreements and consent being vital to a bonded committed relationship can only be reached, when both partners are able to influence each other.    Influence in its most basic and general form means, that when one partner expresses a wish, need, suggestion, this information enters the conscious mind of the other, who processes it and arrives at a decision.    Even the conscious decision not to react in a specific situation is the result of an influence.    Blocking the input of information is impeding all influence.  

When mindblind filters as for example denial, willful not listening or projection impede the other's messages from entering the conscious mind, then there cannot be a decision and there is no influence.   Applying the mindblind filters can be unconscious and involuntary, or it can be a conscious decision to generally use mindblind filters against all utterances from the partner or even from all women.  This is an indication of immaturity, temporary psychological troubles or mental illness. 

In a viable bonded committed relationship, both partners allow enough influence from each other.  The mutual influence is distinctly stronger than other influences.    

One difference of the three determinants is the kind of influence possible in the interaction with a partner in a relationship.   

1.  In entry 338 I defined consequencity as an important personality trait.   In entry 339 I enlarged the concept, in which the best decisions are reached by consequency and skepticism.   It is obvious, that my description of what I am looking for in a mindmate, as I have been writing much about already in this blog, implies that he is also predominantly motivated by consequencity and able to be skeptical.  
In entry 338 I described consequencity in reactive situations, when I am willing to do only, what rationally makes sense, while I refuse to yield to unjustified pressure, nagging and bullying.   

But consequencity has also an important proactive aspect.  For a fair balance of giving and receiving it is not sufficient, that the partner initiating the influence upon the other with a suggestion considers this as fair, it is important that both partners agree.   Proactive consequencity means not to just express wishes and suggestion, but also to explain them.   It also means not to insist on anything, not to make demands, even less use pressure, but to discuss the topic until achieving to convince the other, that it is a fair and rational suggestion.   
Refusing something without a discussion is denying the other a fair chance of convincing.  Such a refusal is even an expression of disrespect, whenever it implies, that he other is irrational, has no good reasons or is not able to convince.   Accepting with a hidden grudge every suggestions in preference to the effort of mutually convincing discussions also impedes the fair balance and damages the relationship.  

That means that I am looking for a partner, who agrees with me, that both is important:  to convince and to allow to be convinced, and that this is the only constructive method of sharing decisions.  And the partner is also able to participate in this strategy.       

The following characteristics are a bit exaggerated.   I will call the extremely gullible puppets, and those extremely driven by selfish urges robots.   Both are high hazards of making the relationship toxic for a partner with consequencity, because the influencing is distorted.  

2.  The puppet.   The gullible person is too easily influenced by anybody and anything.   The partner's influence is not strong enough in comparison with external influences leading to selfish or irrational behaviors doing damage to the partner or the relationship.   

Some examples:
The puppet believes rumors, even those about his partner and his behavior is effected by the rumors.  

He gets sucked into religious groups and esoteric sects and invests time and money, that is needed for the relationship, and/or he neglects his partner.   

He is an easy prey to scams and frauds, he is the sheep of the commercials, buying what he is manipulated to.  
He is taken in by any woowoo, like homeopathy or feng-shui and he is immune to reason and doubts.  
His partner can easily influence him temporarily or to make promises, but he cannot be relied upon, because as soon as he is under a different influence, the promise will not be kept and he will change his mind or abandon a started endeavor.   She walks on eggshells never knowing, what he will do the next moment.  

3.  The robot.   The robot is completely determined by his instincts and hedonistic urges.   He is completely selfish.   He has no interaction with others in the sense of perceiving them as persons or as human beings the same as himself with equal rights or needs.   Everything around him is environment, people are the inventory items therein, they are living tools, commodities, utilities, he perceives their existence as justified only for the purpose of serving his convenience.   

For the robot, there is not much difference between a partner and for example a bicycle.   He wants both to function well and takes care of what he considers appropriate maintenance.    He can love the benefits from being able to ride a bicycle very much, and he can love the benefits of having a partner with the same ardency as loving his bicycle.  
He does not notice, it just does not even occur to consider or to wonder, if and that she has a mind of her own, a personality, needs, emotions, opinions, that are hidden from external observations, but nevertheless real.    He is not only oblivious and mindblind to all this, he is also just not interested or bothered.    

She is a good woman and he loves her, as long as she is functional by giving him the required benefits.  If she resists, he automatically perceives and believes her as flawed and dysfunctional.  Treating her according to what he believes to be his entitlement, he is unable to perceive and acknowledge any unwanted or unpleasant behavior of hers ever as a reaction to his treatment.    

Acknowledging a reaction means to understand being in an interaction with another human being.  But according to his attitude, the purpose of a utility is to serve and not to interact and thus not to react in any way except as required by functioning according to expectations..
The robot is completely uninfluenced and unimpacted by whatever she thinks of him or tells him as feedback to his behavior.   Once he has established control over her, he experiences this as having acquired her as his property once and for ever, and he feels entitled to get all his needs met as long as he wants it.   
For him, all is well and he is content, as long as he succeeds to get his needs met, oblivious of and not bothered about what she wants or feels.    She can grow into disrespecting and even loathing him, he is mindblind to this. 

There is no improvement possible until the relationship fails and ends after having become too toxic for her.  While being out of the relationship is a relief for her, if he got his needs met until the end, he then stalks her for years wanting to regain control over his property.   He cannot be stopped, no matter how drastically she tells him that it is over and that she does not want him anymore.   

Her will and wish just cannot influence him to choose one of two reasonable paths, he neither even considers to change his attitude and his behavior towards her, accepting her conditions and attempting to win her back by learning to treat her as she needs to be treated, nor does he accept to leave her alone, if he is not willing to change.   

He only stops stalking and considering her as his property, if he finds another commodity fulfilling his needs at least as well as she did.   In this case, she is discarded from his inventory list as a piece of garbage, that does not warrant any further consideration.   She is to him like the bicycle.   If it is stolen or has disappeared, he claims it back.   As soon as it is replaced by a new one, it can go to the garbage dump without any regret.