Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

henrikkarlsson.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#41

Post by walterbell »

satvikpendem wrote: post #30
paganel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> biological computers Using that as a metaphor is telling in itself, as we're far from being (just) "biological computers".

> as we're far from being (just) "biological computers". What part is? Or rather, how can you show that we are not? Note that I use "computer" in the general sense, that which computes, by taking in input and emitting output.

Start with the work of Heinz von Foerster and his Biological Computer Laboratory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Computer_Laboratory

> The focus of research at BCL was systems theory and specifically the area of self-organizing systems, bionics, and bio-inspired computing; that is, analyzing, formalizing, and implementing biological processes using computers. BCL was inspired by the ideas of Warren McCulloch and the Macy Conferences, as well as many other thinkers in the field of cybernetics.

1969 zine from BCL students, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34825918

2003 essay collection, "Understanding Understanding", http://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf

  In the late 1940s a group of people had begun meeting every year in New York under the auspices of the Josiah Macy Foundation to discuss “circular causal and feedback mechanisms” .. The group included Norbert Wiener, who had coined the term “cybernetics”; Claude Shannon, the inventor of information theory; Warren McCullough, one of the leading neuropsychiatrists—he called himself an “experimental epistemologist”; Gregory Bateson, the philosopher and anthropologist; his wife Margaret Mead, the anthropologist who made Samoa famous; John von Neuman, one of the people who started the computer revolution..

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#42

Post by tetris11 »

mijustin wrote: post #2

These were the crucial bits for me: > "Sundays are for listing everything that went wrong during the week on the blackboard we painted on the wall of my study, so we can figure out what needs to change." and > "I liked to think about our life as a piece of software. We had our routines and our principles, this was the code. We ran the code by living it. The list on the blackboard was the bug log, a record of the ways…

My ex and I used to do this. Every month we'd plan out the next few months from dates/appointments, incorporating things we had to do, and things we wanted to do.

And every month, we'd sift through the previous month, bump ahead tasks that were missed, discuss tasks that had been bumped repeatedly, and - most importantly - reflect on the last month's achievements together.

As an aside, we would also every year make a printed photo album, sifting through all the photos we'd made that year.

It was sometimes tough and gruelling work, but it really brought us together, and my eyes are wet just thinking of how we really grew together.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#43

Post by llamaimperative »

satvikpendem wrote: post #27
keybored wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the assumptions (and the metaphor) contained in that response of yours seems to contradict the statement itself. By using “just” you’ve already asserted that there is nothing more of relative importance to figure out—it’s done, figured out.

Yes, by using "just," it is a thought terminating word. However, again, I do believe we have it figured out, based on how we understand the rest of the universe to be physically-based as well. It is, in my experience, human arrogance that leads us to believe that we are somehow more than physical structures. It makes people feel uneasy to believe that so they invent something to solve that cognitive dissonance.

Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.”

The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#44

Post by jalapenos »

wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

This is a very powerful concept, but people don't trust in it as much as they used to, because our culture has become hostile to it.

Sexual promiscuity is counter to it. This level of fine detail requires a culture of commiting to a specific individual rather than a quantifiable generic gain.

School is counter to it. It wants to shoehorn people into a specific definition of achievement.

Internet is counter to it. The internet creates a top 5% winner takes all format of personal value to others.

Government is hostile to it. If you fail to reproduce, they'll replace you more than twice over anyway with immigrants from cultures which aren't as broken.

It's unfortunate people have become so hostile to each other, almost reducing society to a me (predator) vs others (prey) situation.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#45

Post by jalapenos »

bloopernova wrote: post #40
wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

After a divorce, I met my soulmate. We're both weird and silly together, and together we discovered that we're both people with autism. We've stopped masking around each other, and we both support each other's growth in self understanding. The passage quoted in the parent comment really resonated with us both. We both know we're incredibly lucky and privileged to have found each other.

Around what age did you divorce, and what age did you meet this person?

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#46

Post by atoav »

wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

This is why much of the advice online pundits give on how to "get a woman" is so misguided — because it usually is advice on "in which Bretzel do I need to twist myself in order to make woman like me".

The issue with that advice is, that once you found a woman that likes that Bretzel, you can't know whether she liked the Bretzel or the person behind the Bretzel. Even better if she twisted herself into a Bretzel to make you like her. Good luck with that then.

The only good relationship advice I can give is to be honest to yourself, train to listen and empathize and put yourself into situations where you get to know people in situations where they don't have to twist themselves into Bretzels

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#47

Post by jalapenos »

keybored wrote: post #19
skummetmaelk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are very good at pretending we are more than just biological machines acting according to genetically imposed network structure refined by lifetime history of training inputs.

Nerds are good at pretending they understand everything by way of reductionist metaphors.

He's above us because he could reduce human life beneath his sophisticated sentence. Maybe nerd is a type of narcissism.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#48

Post by atoav »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #15
wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

Humans are very good at pretending we are more than just biological machines acting according to genetically imposed network structure refined by lifetime history of training inputs.

And your 18th century equivalent would have said the same using a mechanical metaphor using gears and sprockets.

Chances are you are both equally wrong.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#49

Post by squigz »

cen4 wrote: post #11

Thanks to globalization people have more choice in the environments they live in and change environments with much more ease than in the past. While talking about relationships the focus naturally goes to individuals, it should be recognized that growth in relationships on top of ever changing environments gets much more tricky. Transport, Communication, Finance, Info networks have all changed drastically from the pa…

I think globalization is on average a good thing (and probably the only way we survive long-term, but that's another discussion) - but indeed, we have lost some things in the transition, namely stable communities. For a long time, these were provided by our family, our local community, a church, etc. Now, we have much more freedom in our choices of communities (i.e., one might leave an abusive family) which is generally a good thing, but without replacing those communities, it's difficult to grow as a person. Not to mention the myriad other social problems that arise from this - a lack of community to care for the elderly, generations who don't know how to develop real relationships, and the loneliness that comes from that, etc...

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#50

Post by bluefirebrand »

patcon wrote: post #13
bluefirebrand wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bringing up issues is fine If you have so many issues you need to bring them up on a weekly basis? Less fine. Yes, relationships require work, communication and maintenance but issues coming up that frequently would be a sure sign that something is dysfunctional imo Edit: And similarly, like another commenter pointed out, treating it like a weekly task that needs to be done does seem like it would invite nit picking.…

Isn't the rate that is “trouble” up to the couple? I can imagine a really compat couple who trust one another bringing up a dozen small things, and each hearing them with humility. If they're both the sorta ppl who really want to “get” their partner, that could be them discovering the boundary between selves in higher and higher resolution I dunno, lots of ppl in the thread seem to dislike the idea, but I don’t think…

> I don’t think theres a universal healthy/unhealthy line. It’s seemingly just a matter of taste and synchrony between partners

I don't think there's a universal line but I also don't think that this is necessarily "up to the couple"

A lot of couples are miserable together. There are abusive relationships where the person being abused will try and convince everyone around them (including themselves) that everything is fine. Some couples have frequent screaming matches in public. I think it's reasonable for people on the outside to call that unhealthy behavior regardless of how normal the couple thinks it is

The same goes for this. I'm not saying that I think there is absolutely no way this sort of scheduled "weekly retro" can work. I don't think it sounds very healthy though.

Post reply on HN