xpaperxcutx Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I was going thru one of the threads and I came across this so- called "theory" brought up by one of the LS members. I decided to google it and I came across this little article: "I get results when I take control. It is instant death when you hand over "control" to a woman. My secret is to give women "intermittent reinforcement." This actually is a psychological phenomenon commonly documented in experiments involving rats. The goal of the experiment is to have the rat press a lever as many times as possible. The rat is given a pellet of food after it presses a lever. If the rat gets a pellet every time, it soon gets satiated and stops pressing the lever. If, on the other hand, the rat does not receive a pellet every time the lever is pressed, but receives a pellet intermittently, the rat will increase the frequency with which it presses the lever. The analogy is fairly obvious: how do we get women to "press our lever" as many times as possible? Easy, give her attention intermittently and unpredictably. Don't give her a pellet too often. Take control of when she receives one. Don't be at her beck and call." Now the person who wrote this was a guy, but I assume that females can apply this method as well. I mean I've never even heard of this theory until today. So then the question is, can this be used to explain why some people who shows intense interest in you, withdrawl after the first date(s) and refuse to contact you? Like whats your opinion on this whole thing? Link to post Share on other sites
shadowplay Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Thanks Shadowplay. But I like to know, do people intentionally do it to make us "chase" after them or are we just so susceptible to the idea of " love" that we go about chasing after the person? I don't think most people are consciously manipulating others. Link to post Share on other sites
curiousnycgirl Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Very interestng discussion. When I first brought up the concept of intermittency in that thread, I was not thinking of it in the way it is being described above. I was thinking of it as taking the time to allow feelings to grow. Often we meet someone new, and the next thing you know we are spending 5-7 days a week with that person, and everything is a whirlwind. Generally these are not true feelings of love - they are lust, or whatever. However if we take time to get to know someone. See them only intermittently in the beginning of the relationship, no more than 1X a week. The feelings grow at a more normal pace, and are more true. Link to post Share on other sites
Author xpaperxcutx Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Very interestng discussion. When I first brought up the concept of intermittency in that thread, I was not thinking of it in the way it is being described above. I was thinking of it as taking the time to allow feelings to grow. Often we meet someone new, and the next thing you know we are spending 5-7 days a week with that person, and everything is a whirlwind. Generally these are not true feelings of love - they are lust, or whatever. However if we take time to get to know someone. See them only intermittently in the beginning of the relationship, no more than 1X a week. The feelings grow at a more normal pace, and are more true. Right. So basically would you describe the person as becoming obsessive then? Because I think I'm like that. I kind of rush to things and kind of perceive it as something more than it was. Link to post Share on other sites
curiousnycgirl Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Right. So basically would you describe the person as becoming obsessive then? Because I think I'm like that. I kind of rush to things and kind of perceive it as something more than it was. I wouldn't call it obsessive. Everyone rushes things. Basically we are all looking for love, so when we think we've found it - we grab on with both hands and try to soak it up like a sponge. But the truth is that real love/real feelings grow over time. You can't truly love someone you've just met - you don't even know them. In order to truly love someone you need to know them, almost better than you know yourself. You love them faults and all. Finding out all you need to know about someone can only be done over time. Are they dependable? Do they keep their word? Are they thoughtful? Will they do things for you without even being asked? Are they consistent in how they treat you? I think I read it here at some point - relationships that start out like gangbusters, end just as quickly, generally in a ball of flames. Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Does this theory always work? Is it fair to say that a mature adult wouldn't put up with such behavior? Link to post Share on other sites
curiousnycgirl Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think it works as it should. As we get to know someone, we may discover they are not who we want to be with. However I woudl suggest that the ending in that case will be far less dramatic. Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 um what? not realy sure what you just said Link to post Share on other sites
shadowplay Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 You guys are talking about a separate issue -- how fast a relationship should move in its early stages. Intermittent reinforcement isn't so much about pacing as the frequency and predictability of rewards. Pacing is a discussion for another thread, and has actually been discussed on many other threads if you do a search. Intermittent reinforcement is a fascinating phenomenon that hasn't been discussed much on LS, so let's not stray from it as the subject of this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 sounds good shadow play. SO if i'm dropping this theory on her, what if she has exes and male friends in the wings. instead of pining for my next hit of niceness she could just turn to them. now what? maybe one of these guys is already pulling this on her. how do i turn her focus on me? by pulling the same stunt? Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 So then the question is, can this be used to explain why some people who shows intense interest in you, withdrawl after the first date(s) and refuse to contact you? Like whats your opinion on this whole thing? No. People use intermittent reinforcement when they are in ongoing relationships. When someone doesn't call after a first date after showing intense interest, they are simply a relationship junkie. It's like people in a watermelon field who eat the center, sweet part of a melon...cast the rest aside...and move on to another melon. A first date serves as no basis for the institution of intermittent reinforcement. Link to post Share on other sites
torranceshipman Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 New dating red flag...run away if you see food pellets and a lever! :lmao: Link to post Share on other sites
curiousnycgirl Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 New dating red flag...run away if you see food pellets and a lever! :lmao: LOL if only they were all that obvious! TonyT I agree my explanation did not coer intermittent reinforcement. The reason i chimed in was because the term entered a thread in which I posted the need for intermittency at the early stages of a relationship - so I was clarifying what I meant - not what the term meant. Sorry about that. TheMessenger - in regard to my last post - you had asked if it worked. My answer was it should let you learn whether or not you want to be with that person more realisticaly than running pell mell into a new relationship and then hitting a wall and heart break. What I meant was working in this case should not be limited to a relationship progressing, it might mean you go your separate ways - whichever way it goes, it will be for all the right reasons Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra_X30 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 sounds good shadow play. SO if i'm dropping this theory on her, what if she has exes and male friends in the wings. instead of pining for my next hit of niceness she could just turn to them. now what? maybe one of these guys is already pulling this on her. how do i turn her focus on me? by pulling the same stunt? I'd say that depends on multiple factors. Chief among those would be your perceived potential value to her, combined with her current investment in you. So, I suppose to answer your question you need to either get her to place more emotional investment in you, or make yourself seem more valuable in some way. Link to post Share on other sites
Florida Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I'd say that depends on multiple factors. Chief among those would be your perceived potential value to her, combined with her current investment in you. So, I suppose to answer your question you need to either get her to place more emotional investment in you, or make yourself seem more valuable in some way. Right, in other words- Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't mean cr$p and won't work unless the person is into you in the first place. And messenger-unless she is actively trying to compromise on the issue of her ex's, she is not that into you. Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) um ok.........................shes compromising but says her last ex left her with noone and won't let that happen again. cobra please expand on making myself seem more valuable. Edited February 19, 2008 by themessenger Link to post Share on other sites
Florida Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 um ok.........................shes compromising but says her last ex left her with noone and won't let that happen again Okay sorry if I missed that part-how exactly is she compromising? -Is she contacting them less? -Has she made a point to never hang out with them unless you are there to show you both are a unit? -Has she stopped messaging them for special holidays that should be just for her SO? Link to post Share on other sites
oppath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 How about this: you live a full life with friends and activities you enjoy -- Hash House Harriers, photography class, softball, sailing lesson, Sierra Club, Young Democrats, whatever -- so that you CAN'T see a new prospect more than once every 5 days or so. As your relationships grow, you do some of those activities less and you integrate your new bf/gf into them if appropriate (i.e. taking her with you for drinks with your teammates after the game). If you live a full life, dating will be intermittent. It HAS TO BE. But if you are looking at the calendar thinking "ok, I've got nothing going on these next 5 days, but I need to wait wait wait or she'll lose interest" I'd say that your relationship is unlikely to succeed. However, if you look at your calendar and think "I'm busy 3 of the next 5 nights, and I'd like a night to myself, but I really liked this girl; I've always wanted to see this jazz band play on Thursday, I am free then, I'll ask her." If you get caught up in strategy, the relationship won't feel organic. It won't be natural. It is wise to space the first few dates but it should feel natural in doing it, not some kind of plot. Link to post Share on other sites
Author xpaperxcutx Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Right, in other words- Intermittent Reinforcement doesn't mean cr$p and won't work unless the person is into you in the first place. I find this rather harsh as the person on the receiving end would go thru endless emotional turmoil just trying to figure out why this person is "stringing" them along. You make it sound like they're doing it on purpose with a tether wrapped around their finger. Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think she nay be contacting them less. hasn't displayed us as a unit. Link to post Share on other sites
fever to tell Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think you guys are missing the point. I've learned about this theory in a lot of different psych classes and have also wondered if it would apply to relationships. Its not about not being too available... a better analogy would be being hot and cold. Usually affectionate in response to affection (hot), but sometimes unaffectionate in response to affection (cold). The idea, in psychology at least, is that such a classical conditioning pattern makes the learned behavior take longer to learn, but once it is learned, it has a much lower rate of extinction. Link to post Share on other sites
Florida Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I find this rather harsh as the person on the receiving end would go thru endless emotional turmoil just trying to figure out why this person is "stringing" them along. You make it sound like they're doing it on purpose with a tether wrapped around their finger. I have been posting in your thread in response to the messengers inquiries, which probably sounds completely out of context mixed in with the other posters so it seems I am creating confusion and mixed messages-sorry! Link to post Share on other sites
shadowplay Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think you guys are missing the point. I've learned about this theory in a lot of different psych classes and have also wondered if it would apply to relationships. Its not about not being too available... a better analogy would be being hot and cold. Usually affectionate in response to affection (hot), but sometimes unaffectionate in response to affection (cold). The idea, in psychology at least, is that such a classical conditioning pattern makes the learned behavior take longer to learn, but once it is learned, it has a much lower rate of extinction. That's exactly right. But I think intermittent reinforcement is more effective in a relationship when it comes to contact, not affection. Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra_X30 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 um ok.........................shes compromising but says her last ex left her with noone and won't let that happen again. cobra please expand on making myself seem more valuable. Well, I left it generic because each person values different things. Maybe she wants a guy with money, or a guy who dresses snappy, or someone passionate, or strong... ect. It's up to you to find out what she wants and see if you fit that. I would not recommend changing anything about your core self. If she wants an investment banker... don't pretend to be one, you won't get what you want in the end. Does that make more sense? Link to post Share on other sites
themessenger Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 ok cobra I'll ask her what she wants but money is not the issue....trust me Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts