Alone Together, Again
al3x.net
al3x.net
Every single time I've tried to push my life in a direction, tried to bend it to my will, it has blown up in my face. So, while I have things I'd like to do and places I'd like to go, I've learned to just let things unfold as they may. I try to influence and guide it, but I don't push it anymore.
I think it comes down to my reaction to the results of trying to push it. When I'm letting it glide, I'm unconcerned about things going in the wrong direction and am happy when they do. If I'm trying to push it, I wind up concerned when things go in the wrong direction and not particularly happy when they do (that was where they were supposed to go, after all).
I learned this lesson at a much older age than I should have.
People learn things when their mind is clear. During my teenage and college years, my mind was convoluted by ideal thoughts and I may have been blinded by those thoughts.
As I get older, I tend to sit back a little bit and observe more than be trigger-happy (in giving advises, in sharing opinions, in giving orders, etc.), I learn a lot more about life by doing this.
For example, I tried to make friends in the first week of college by talking to random people. I joined some clubs and went to events. This completely failed, I didn't click with anyone; these kinds of things didn't fit with my personality. All of my current friends I've met serendipitously. And, because I stopped caring so much about it, I think I have much better social skills now.
Kind of fits with the Daoist philosophy of wu wei: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
EDIT: hah, looks like someone else made the same connection :D
In my mind the hardest part of life is figuring out and prioritizing what I should do. During my freshman year of college (another 19-year-old here) I was very deliberate about taking classes I was interested in, rather than ones that my friends from orientation were taking. As a result I learned a ton of great stuff, I had an awesome schedule, and I met kids I wouldn't have met from just staying within my comfort zone. At the same time, I missed out on valuable chances to get to know other kids that were in the same boat as me: fledgling freshman looking for a friend group. I think if I had gone with the flow in this situation I would have been much happier that first semester. I would've been taking easier classes, getting more sleep and exercise, and hanging out with soon-to-become lifetime friends. That's what I've been trying out this semester, and it's turned out that I'm much happier for it. But is this a road I want to keep going down?
In tasting the happiness of wu wei and satisfaction of focused drive, I've realized the dilemma that I've always been in. As a social yet ambitious individual the hardest part of my life has been finding balance.
Not caring about stuff that doesn't matter and being good at things go hand in hand.
(no commercial interest)
Don't try to like the things you think you ought to like, just let yourself like the things you do like.
It seems simple enough, but I found it quite difficult to actually do. If you succeed though, it not only makes you happier, it also seems to inoculate you against pretentiousness.
Editing your own reward matrix should certainly be approached with extreme caution, but I see no reason to rule it out altogether.
On a day-to-day basis, what's the difference between "influencing and guiding it" vs. "pushing it"? No snark, just trying to understand your POV a bit better.
Yes life is what happens when you get too busy making just plans. A plan is where you want to be, but to get there your plan needs action items when when executed one at a time or in iterations will get you there.
Basically you need to do work to make it happen.
I'm not the parent of this thread, but I'll try to give my side of the story. The thing is that you cannot control absolutely everything. When you think you have it all, there's suddenly divorce/nasty break-up (as it also happened to me), disease, loss of loved ones, a once in a century economic crisis while you're stuck somewhere in the middle of no-where etc.
I'm not arguing for fatalism :), on the contrary, but I think that if one has this on the back of his/her mind (s)he'll be a stronger person.
I could give 'day-to-day' examples, but maybe that's not even necessary.
Forcing it: I learn everything I can about AI. I attend meetups, conferences, whatever. I begin obsessing about how little progress I'm making towards my goal. Eventually, I either give up in frustration, or I take a sub-optimal leap in that direction just so I can make some progress.
It is the frustration and the sub-optimal leaps that cause the problems. The frustration leads to self-loathing and depression; the suboptimal leaps result in me being somewhere that, ultimately, doesn't lead where I want, leading me back to frustration.
Guiding it, on the other hand, starts similarly: I learn everything I can about AI. I attend meetups, conferences, whatever. What changes is the obsessing part. Now I'm trying to enjoy the experience, the knowledge and the people. Eventually, I find that it's not what I thought it was or a place where I fit opens naturally. If its the former, there's no frustration; if its the latter, huzzah.
I don't want to sound like I have some zen capability or anything (trust me, I'm far from that!). I have to remind myself very regularly the pitfalls of pushing things because I'm a very impatient person. I also have struggled with depression, so I also have to continually remind myself that, even if I feel like I'm not making progress, I am and that the alternative, feeling like I'm making progress when I'm not really, is far worse.
It seems like I can't do anything and make anything in my life happen. When I get home from work all I can do is sleep or lie down. I'm positively bored most of the time but don't know how to fix it.
I've felt depressed (distinct from episodes of 'proper' depression) very often in my life. It often too much longer to get out of this because I was looking for a fix, while the fix often resulted from just doing something different, sometimes even seemingly stupid. But it always worked. Breaking patterns.
I would encourage you to talk to a doctor and find a good psychologist who understands cognitive based therapies. The best responses to depression include both pharmacological and brain hacking (which is what CBT is). They can help you understand if you are burned out, depressed or both.
I wish you well. It's a hard spot to be in, but one you can get out of. Feel free to email me (in my profile) if I can answer any questions (or do much of anything else) for you.
I got damn close, too. It would've been really easy to go through with it. I didn't go through with it, and I got help. I'm now actively making my life better each day. I am pursuing the direction I want to go in life, and I am happier than I've ever been. Have I had setbacks? Of course, I can't predict everything. Doesn't mean I'm going to abandon this. I know that this is the right direction for me, but it's not the default direction.
I think the difference is, he is talking about, in the past, forcing the external circumstances of his life to conform to some ideal, where as now, he accepts that this isn't possible.
You, on the other hand, are talking about fighting your own internal battle to make yourself the best you can be. Your battle does sound exceptionally difficult, but we all fight that one.
I think maybe the point that I take away from all of this is, you can't always change the world. But (with a lot of hard work) you can change how you react to it. And that's the more important battle than any external circumstance anyway.
It certainly doesn't mean I don't have dreams, aspirations and goals. It doesn't mean that I didn't spend most of the day yesterday working on a side project that I hope to bootstrap. It just means that I won't pursue that bootstrapping in a way that, ultimately, is damaging to myself and my relationships with others.
It is complicated and not at all easy to write out.
Also a certain amount of contrast is good in life. Just going with the flow seems to dull life, removing inner conflict, conflict with others, pain, excitement...
I think 'going with the flow' can go further than just on a life scale. In my case it means making decisions that often shake things up and seem a bit silly and counter-productive. I make these decisions because usually they work out and at least keep things interesting. But within these paths of conflict/difficulty I go with the flow. Not necessarily as an all-encompassing approach to life.
I still hope I can get my side project to a reasonable level of completeness and people will have some interest in it. It's just that, now, my identity isn't tied up in it.
And maybe that's what it comes down to: is my identity tied up in what I'm trying to accomplish? Because if it is, and I fail, that makes me a failure.
I use a train of thought along the lines of: All of my suffering comes from a desire to be somewhere I'm not.
Consider a captive. Imagine the isolation and abuse that goes along with a typical scenario of being held captive. Much like an animal put into captivity, if the captive accepts his/her life situation (of being in captivity, abuse and all) he/she does not suffer from it, it is simply his/her way of life.
Whether I like it or not, I'm a captive of life. That's not to say I shouldn't or can't influence it, of course I can, but I cannot make it what it is not. I can guide my life where I think it needs to go but I should have no expectations and welcome whatever I find, oasis and monsters alike, with a smile, curiosity and affection. It lets me be content, whatever the weather.
Other than that, though, my life seems like a ridiculous streak of luck. I could go into detail, but suffice to say that serendipity is a running theme.
Now of course part of it is coming from a (relatively) stable family, being white and educated. I am aware of that.
But compared to others just like me, on paper anyways, I still have a ridiculously good life.
I truly believe a lot of that has to do with expectations, and the perspective you choose to have. I don't think it has much to do with personality. By nature I worry a lot, and I tend to be depressed and pessimistic.
For me, it's the difference between reacting and responding. When I 'react', it is a passive/automatic action following some event, some intrusion, something unexpected. I was not prepared for this event, so my reaction is often not optimal, in hindsight.
When I respond, the actual responds might be equally 'automatic', but it is based on a more generic kind of preparation, and leads to better results. In hindsight, it seems like I knew what was going to happen.
I have, through circumstance, spent most of my life with a lot of uncertainty, so I naturally developed skills that allow me to 'respond'. And as a result, many good things came about because I 'responded' correctly, based on some trained principle or perspective. And many bad things didn't impact me as much, because I feel like most of my life is improvisation anyways.
It came to me several years ago when I was visiting an aquarium in Hawaii, out of all places. One of the videos they were showing explained the life that plankton live. These are micro-organisms that literally drift in the ocean and go wherever the currents take them. And in the end, most are eaten by a larger organism. One might argue that this is a fine way for a plankton to live, because their "purpose" in life is to end up as food for something else.
And many humans live their lives as plankton. Why? The simplest and most realistic answer is that it's the path of least resistance. It's much easier to drift in life and go wherever the currents take you, than to try to swim and go where you actually want to go. But to say (or, in the article's case, imply) that this is the right "lesson" is a bit annoying.
After that aquarium visit, I had about a week to think things true. And I realized that I had lived my life as a plankton up until then, and it had not resulted in much happiness. I was always reacting what was happening to me, and letting people push me around much like ocean currents push plankton around. In the end, I decided that I would rather be a shark. And that's when my life started to change for the better in almost every way.
He deserves immense credit for showing this level of transparency. If you haven't taken some lesson away from this post, then you need to re-read it. It's not about empathy; it's about the importance of self-discovery.
Louis CK
Louis CK
(If no happy marriages have ever ended in divorce, and Ray Charles has never killed a Jew, then Ray hasn't killed more Jews than happy marriages have ended in divorce, but equally is as many.)
And that wasn't the only time Louis CK made the connection:
"There are so many dead people. Ray Charles is dead... Hitler. A bunch of other ones, but mostly those two guys. Ray Charles and Hitler are both dead. And really, it’s the only thing they have in common, because otherwise, they’re very different dudes. Many contrasts between Hitler and Ray Charles. I’m gonna tell you a few of them. Ray Charles was black, Hitler was NOT. Hitler killed several Jews... Too many, I’ll say too many. He killed an excessive amount of Jews. He really beat that thing to the ground. He killed way - just no moderation. Ray Charles, meanwhile, hardly any Jews! He killed so few Jews!"
There are therapists out there who push their clients to blame everything on their marriage and get divorce. Some marriages that were working perfectly well until the poor therapy ended in divorce, to the later regret (at different times) of both members.
So at the moment of divorce there was unhappiness. But what marriage does not have periods of stress? But the marriage itself had been working, and would have likely continued to work were it not for the crappy therapy.
That said, this is an edge case.
Back to the point. CK is wrong in a second surprise. What comes as news in many divorces is that there were problems. People tend not to share what is happening inside of marriages. So the existence of problems is itself news.
I think btilly meant to answer this with "So at the moment of divorce there was unhappiness. But what marriage does not have periods of stress?" It isn't very clear, but the point is that something might be wrong, but it might be temporary.
> Secondly, once this person goes to therapy and ends up asking for a divorce, what makes the other person such a reliable source on whether things were going well?
A lot of decisions to get divorced aren't mutual. Many of them seem mutual because the other person decides to cooperate, but that's different from arriving at the same decision independently.
Finally, btilly said that it's an edge case. My reaction was to think that Louis CK is a comedian and that he's saying something that is the case much of the time is the case all of the time for effect. I take philosophical statements by comedians with a grain of salt.
Maybe the person going to therapy was just going through one of life's blips that everyone experiences, but even assuming there is something more serious then why does it have to be marriage-related? Maybe they are suffering from depression, or PTSD, or... etc. etc. There's many valid reasons for therapy and not all of them are related to your love life.
When the person who asked for the divorce concludes that the marriage actually was fine until they screwed it up on the bad advice of the crappy therapist, that's pretty good evidence that the marriage fundamentally had nothing wrong with it.
As for going into therapy, people do that all of the time for all sorts of reasons. I can personally name people who went into therapy because of poor childhoods, work stress, seasonal affect disorder, losing a child, work problems, and so on - there is a long list of reasons that have nothing to do with the marriage that might lead someone to ask for help. Of course if the person who is supposed to be helping hurts instead, there is no limit to how much collateral damage might happen.
The common trend is that married couples start off with some reassurance rituals to let the other know that you're still madly in love. Over time the rituals get abbreviated, but remain as a sign of reassurance. However they've become habit, even if there are problems they will be kept up.
Then when the problems get to be too much for one person, the other is blindsided because, "(S)he gave me a kiss and told me (s)he loved me every morning!" OK, (s)he did. But did (s)he do that because (s)he thought you expected her to, or because (s)he meant it?
(Disclaimer. I've been married for 22 years. My perspective is that if you don't know what can go wrong, you are left with just hoping that it will go right.)
I got through that valley in my life, and I've been happily married over 12 years.
There are some people in this world you simply must avoid. There is also advice out there that's pure poison. I don't think taking marriage advice from a cynical, divorced comedian is a great idea.
It's an idea that betrays a profoundly defective concept of marriage - that a lifelong relationship should seem easy and natural and that if it's not so perfect that you're absolutely certain that it's the best possible relationship you could ever have, the solution is to end it and start from scratch with someone else. It's a rejection of the idea that living with anyone is inherently difficult and requires a great deal of hard work, that people get cold feet and seven year itches, that people take things for granted, that the grass always seems greener. If divorce were genuinely a good thing, we'd expect post baby-boom generations with high divorce rates to be much happier and more satisfied with their relationships than their parents and grandparents; Instead, the opposite is true.
Only if nothing except divorce had changed. For example, it could be that people nowadays have greater expectations for their marriages.
Sorry, but this is just a delusion. The "rate of happiness" in relationships was simply not measured until the sexual revolution of the '60s/'70s: because of asymmetry in roles, married women were just not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.
Also, there was very little acceptance for the possibility of unhappiness: if you were correctly following all social and religious mores, "of course" you were happy. Being unhappy was a weakness which could not be displayed nor tolerated.
Things change for a reason. Idyllic Arcadian scenarios are always, invariably, delusions concocted by incomplete information.
You mean this had nothing to do with the quality of their relationship? Otherwise, I agree with you.
I seem to recall a study that showed many partners were much happier with each other after the pressures of marriage were removed from their relationship. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the actions and later regret of those people you refer to is a direct result of having no "escape hatch" in marriage. Destroying everything you have is often the only way out, even if it would have been prudent for the couple to just end the marriage and keep the relationship. But that brings us back to the parent's point: Who ends a marriage to increase the happiness of the relationship? Nobody. Divorce implies an end.
Besides, it's a performance art--just reading the jokes written down is never going to be as funny.
The state of a marriage is not set in stone. It is absolutely possible (and happens all the time) that a great marriage falls apart because one or both partners gradually stop giving attention to each other. The opposite may also be the case. A marriage that started off badly or took a big hit still can be amended.
It just doesn't happen automatically.
Marriage is mainly what both partners[1] make of it, und requires constant work and care. Of all the divorces I have seen in my environment, there was always at least one partner who wasn't willing to give his share of commitment.
Quote I heard somewhere:
After 65 years of marriage, an old couple was asked how they managed to stay together for so long. The woman thought for a few seconds, and then replied: "You know, we were born in a time where people used to repair things instead of throwing them away."
[1] This admittedly does mean that the fate of the marriage doesn't lie completely in the hands of one individual. You can't single-handedly make your marriage a good one. So maybe thats even the singlemost important trait to look for in a potential partner: Check for the ability to cooperate.
I'm young enough for marriage to seem distant, and my parents are still married, yet more than half of the children I grew up with had divorced parents and I have several separated family members.
It's not uncommon for most of the families on a suburb block to be divorced, especially in certain areas (most of my affluent white friends had antagonistically divorced parents, mainly due to money)[1]. The U.S. still has a large problem with divorce (~50%), and especially with divorce among families with children.
Divorce is far too often considered "taboo", as stated in this article, which is quite a travesty because I've found discussion can provide great benefit to not only those already affected by it, but those contemplating long term relationships. We consider divorce a "failure" in modern society, and in my opinion that's very often not the case. Many times divorce can mean simply a resolution of irreconcilable differences. However the law, lack of openness and general societal pressure can turn even amicable splits ugly.
In the end I've found closure like the OP describes always the most helpful: realization that life continues to go on, and even things that you relate with the old relationship (in this case, technology) will still be there as they always were.
[1] I feel it's important to note that divorce rates are highly variable dependent upon ethnic groups and demographics
I can understand that divorces happen due to incompatibility reasons. But 50% is too high a number for that reason alone.
Also I've heard marriage rates itself in the west are quite low. Never understood the logic behind that.
Compared to when?
Divorce is a taboo in India. The blog post says it's taboo to talk about in US as well, but it's totally different from not even considering divorce as an option. People endure bad relationships as divorce isn't something on the table for most. Despite all the development, women still aren't empowered enough. Women who are at the receiving ends of an abusive relationship will have to muster a lot of courage to even think about divorce, and then life after divorce will be difficult for them everywhere except for reverse metropolitan ghettos.
As another commenter pointed out, no good marriage ever ended in a divorce(Louis CK).
Gold diggers(I would guess they constitute a very small %; people who attract gold diggers generally do pre-nups), ugly child custody and alimony battles, and high divorce rates are the price of empowerment. Just like people drawing Barack Obama with ape like features is the price of democracy and freedom.
Actually dowry law is misused quite a lot in our country and is not a small percentage by any means. And is also contributing to loss in faith in the institute of marriage to a large extent.
My wife and I got married after 6 weeks of acquaintance, in order to get visas that would allow us to live in the same country so we could get to know each other better. The deal was, if it didn't work, it didn't work, and we'd go our separate ways.
But once you've made that commitment, and you realize this person is really somebody you like, a lot, and you'd have to research international law to figure out a divorce, then ... well, you learn to work through the most unbelievable and outrageous problems.
We have had very, very bad times. And we've had a lot of pretty damn good times. Every year, we don't get divorced.
There's nothing magical about marriage. There's most definitely nothing magical about love. You can love somebody passionately and that has nothing at all to do with marriage. Confusing these things is why people hurt themselves so often.
You really gotta get that bad stuff out in the open, talk about it, yell about, whatever it takes. Don't be pissed off about something for weeks on end (even more than a day is too long). To keep a marriage strong, both partners have to learn to deal w/ each other's idiosyncrasies and communicate about perceived grievances, annoyances, and so on. Extreme stubbornness, selfishness, all these things are pretty much incompatible with a healthy marriage.
I don't like marriage, as an institution. I'm married, because I'm quite certain that I want to stay with this person, because of tax benefits and a clearly defined situation for offsprings (from 'parental rights' to banal things like 'last name of the little one').
Without that, I couldn't care less about marriage (yes, my wife knows that pov). I'm not religious, so all the reasons for marriage listed there don't apply. Looking at society I think that - depending on the country/region/culture, I guess - marriage lost its meaning.
You might disagree and think that marriage is still an important concept, but in that case I'd argue that divorce shouldn't be ~that easy~. That doesn't mix in my world. The _only_ value of marriage, subjective of course, is the binding vow to stay with someone, period. Reducing that to "Yeah, 'til death or .. something else" is really nonsense, in absolute terms.
I love my wife, but my signature & vow aren't better than a vow I presented her on a random beach in France, with no witnesses.
Ignoring my impression of the value of marriage: Lots of people around me (and my former self certainly as well) seem to be less tolerant. If it's more and more easy to find a new partner (the original article mentions finding people on craigslist..), why would you invest time and energy in this current relationship, that goes through a hard time? The incentive is lowered: You can find people easily (online, offline), society doesn't really care if you were married before in general (certainly not everywhere, but in the western countries I know that's the case) and getting a divorce is ~easy~ (although, potentially nasty/expensive/etc). Why should you work hard to overcome problems in a relationship where a lot of the initial giddy feeling stuff is gone (substituted with something just as good perhaps, if you're happy. But .. in times of crisis you'll probably forget about that)?
Let's get back to the question, shall we? In a word, in my expectation, the reason for a high rate of divorce is:
Lazyness
Do you feel the same could be said about non-marriage relationships that end? As someone who is married, I see absolutely no difference between getting divorced now and breaking up with a partner before getting married.
But that's kind of my point: What's in a marriage, if not 'stability' or the vow to keep it going? If you agree that this isn't the case anymore for large parts of the world, what's the value or meaning of being married?
Of course non-marriage relationships fail all the time and the very same impatient / lazy outlook on life might be part of the reason. I'm just arguing that marriage was meant to (in culture, religion) be different.
I don't think it needs to have any value or meaning.
What is the meaning in, say, receiving a diploma/degree? I've never once looked back and thought, boy, I'm sure glad I have that piece of paper. The education I received remains with or without it. The recognition means absolutely nothing. It is really just an excuse to celebrate something going on in your life.
- I'm just arguing that marriage was meant to (in culture, religion) be different.
There seems to be two schools on this matter:
1. It was once traditionally illegal for mixed-race couples to be together, and marriage provided a licence from the state to allow those relationships on a case-by-case basis.
2. Alternatively, women were once thought to be the inferior gender and were pressured to bend to the wishes of their husband, and the marriage license made that control legally binding to a single entity.
Neither are socially acceptable anymore, thus any historical usage of marriage has been lost.
You have more important things to be doing right now than hang out on HN. Take care of your baby, take care of your wife, and sleep when you have a moment off from those.
Nexus 7 and HN to the rescue. :)
For people with religious convictions, I understand: your god(s) hate you if you have relationships not sanctioned by your religious authorities. I am specifically asking about secular people in the US and Europe, who choose to enter a contract with the government about their personal lives.
Is it taxes? It seems much easier to me to just make more money than to make "till death do us part" work.
For health insurance, domestic partnerships work closely enough. (This is a US-specific problem.)
It seems to me that most marriages occur because the wedding industry has done a phenomenal job of marketing itself. Many girls grow up dreaming about their weddings. Men, assuming that women want this, go along. With predictable results in the divorce rate.
Companionship and love have nothing to do with a piece of paper filed with the local government.
Marriage is just a way that society found to keep both parties more committed into it.
Commitment and accountability to the person how bears your children, or who supports you through medical school or your startup years, has everything to do with a piece of paper filed with the local government.
I cringe whenever it happens but this is one of those things the social right wing seems to be correct on. Marriage should be about giving legal protection to the relationship that best serves the raising of healthy children. How it gets twisted into a debate about equality I have never understood.
We should just abolish the institution altogether.
Then with the rise of feminism, marriage becomes some prison to be escaped with little consequences. Unhappy, divorced parents leads to children disaffected with marriage and the rate falls with each generation.
Consider taking your own advice.
Is this a preemptive strike? I don't see anyone punching the guy.
- If she/he finds enjoyment from it [pick anything] then encourage it. Don't find a fault in it and be an ass.
- Comments and attitudes over time do matter. Don't be condescending. You're not "all that." You may think you are, but you're not.
- Everyone has dreams. They may not align with yours. That's OK, if you aren't narcissistic and an egoist. Look in the mirror from time to time.
Everyone wants to be loved. Everyone wants to be appreciated. All work is honorable.
Anyone who doesn't have this level of emotional maturity isn't ready to get married!
When pain stacks upon pain stacks upon pain until you can't take it and then it keeps going even more for an unimaginable time, something burns away in you, leaving you a kind of stark clarity about the world and yourself. It is a realistic view, but not a happy one. I believe they call it 'shock'.
What we conventionally call 'happy' is actually a pleasant delusion. (Luckily?) this delusion is quite resilient! It seeps back into us, and we start to believe, once again, that everything is actually going to be okay this time around.
You wouldn't think it, but I think it's easier if you don't suffer this sort of torment alone. Consider the life-bending events of 9/11. Overall, I'd say that New Yorkers recovered emotionally really, really fast, mainly because everyone felt that horror and shock. But personal tragedy like this is tough because our culture tolerates friendship that doesn't tolerate "general unpleasantness". Anyone going through this will be a wreck, that's a given. But so often friends will turn their back, unable or unwilling to endure the unpleasant inconvenience of a friend in dire need. This is, of course, inhuman.
So yes, kudos for a well-written piece, and may you find happiness once again (you will).
Thank you for your honesty. As someone who lacks life experience, I sincerely appreciate your perspective.
Had I heard the same kind of story from just about anyone else, I think it would have been pretty uneventful, but to sit across from someone so undeterred by some of life's largest challenges was pretty moving. I imagine the sort of outward displays of not-really-togetherness I'd probably display under similar circumstances, and Al3x's matter-of-fact and direct way of dealing with it was pretty inspirational. It totally comes through in this piece, too.
What a guy.
(Not directly related to the article, but) : In the West, is it always the husband that has to leave the house? I once saw a movie in which the husband comes home and discovers that he being offered a divorce, and the wife says, "Leave my home". She was a stay-at-home wife, and he was working. I found it odd that she refers to it "my home" rather than "our home" or "the home" or "I think it is better if we both live apart", which is more civil.
If so, it's a cultural dictum, rather than a legal one, right?
(I am from India and I don't know many divorced people).
If you own the house together, you can't force the other person to leave (unless it's a matter of safety and you involve the police.)
As long as things aren't TOO nasty, couples usually figure something out so that nobody goes homeless. If your wife was a stay-at-home wife with no income, and no place to go, you might let her stay in the house.
1. sometimes only one partner could afford the house on their own. It
makes sense for them to be the one that stays.
2. if there are children, then where possible it can make life easier on
them if the parent who gets custody stays in the house
so the children don't have to move. This is more frequently the mother.
3. if the divorce is seen as one person's "fault" then they are expected
to take on most of the inconvenience, which includes moving out.
4. depending on your state and any pre-nuptial agreements and niche
circumstances like living in a house owned by the parents of one person,
sometimes the house straight up belongs to one member of the couple and
they get to stay there.
It's actually rare for someone to evict the other, since it's entirely illegal and usually undesired by the evictee. If the separation is very much ill-willed, the person who wants the divorce usually leaves (often as a surprise).
This about a 4 year relationship? The whole thing reads like someone who needs to do a lot more self-reflection.
He's 28; 4 years is a big chunk of that life. I'm not quite sure what you mean though. He seems to do some self-reflection, and this post is an example of it made public.
Years ago, when my SO and I calculated our compatibility using OKCupid, there was a way to run a report on items that decreased compatibility. We didn't have many, but it was helpful to talk about the few things we did disagree on. I wonder if they were able to do something similar before their marriage; maybe it would have helped.
Sorry for your pain Alex, but glad to see you are getting to experience some wonderful new things. Thank you for sharing this touching piece.
There's no way that in a post that explores the limits of technology, he's actually trying to make some claim that he missed a huge red flag in an online dating algorithm's output, nor that we should interpret the situation in that way.
I wouldn't put so much stock in someone like eHarmony, but OkCupid--sure! Those guys use math!
disclaimer: I work for OkCupid Labs.
OKCupid uses reader-generated surveys.
Was somewhat disappointed when okCupid was acquired by match.com.
I agree with you that we shouldn't put too much stock in these algorithms. Still, it's interesting that OK Cupid reached the same conclusion as Alex's wife: we're too different.
The enemy part is particularly interesting because it indicates conflict. The story would seem different if it was like "Ok cupid says we're 70% match but we think we're 99% match!". Instead, it's OKCupid saying: "you have conflicts" and the couple deciding to move forward despite those conflicts.
I'm not trying to make a big point here; I just find this part of the story fascinating.
We didn't meet on a dating website, but my current partner and I have done pretty much this. We sat down, and talked, and had a very frank, logical discussion of the things we disagree on, to try and weed out any red-flag issues before they became issues. It transpired that politically, we're quite different - but we both think it's pretty boring to be with someone who feels the same as you on every issue, all the time. I think it was good to do that - to talk thoroughly through things in a calm way, before they turn up in a completely unrelated fight.
There is an old Chinese proverb (the beauty of which is probably lost in the butchery of my translation):
"Life is like honey-gathering bees, After collecting all the honey from myriad flowers, They age and their labor leaves them with nothing."
This kind of thing is always traumatic but it's a great time to be a hacker with no ties.
Try saying: 'It is taking time to make things "feel" whole again.'
I know it's a small difference, but it provides (imho) a more accurate perspective. Perspective is a lot, if not everything.
Point is, you're already whole, but it takes time to feel it.
Some people probably do believe that a dating site is the one to blame. Sad.
Thank you so very much for sharing your story. This degree of honesty is far too rare and is absolutely commendable. More appropriately, your story resonates in strong sympathy with mine.
"I owe my life to technology."
Those who've never uttered this are simply unable to grasp the extensive implications of such a notion. Even in those who don't openly admit it, it eventually manifests itself; often in bizarre ways. A friend of mine has the "transistor" symbol tattooed across his forearm; another wears small electrical components as jewellery. Neither are able to readily admit just how much technology has effected their lives; particularly to their partners. This failure of honesty was the downfall of my most cherished relationship, and many since. And I fear, many hereafter.
"I tried to imagine what my life would be like in the wake of all this if I had been living two hundred years ago. Most likely, I would be trapped. I would be living in the scraps of the life that had unraveled around me. I could not seek the support of friends from around the world at any time of day or night. I could not book passage to wherever I felt I needed to escape to. I couldn’t work from wherever I happen to end up. Trapped."
The truth is: our fixation on all things technological is merely a symptom of what's otherwise a distinct disease. We yearn for a life less ordain, less automated and yet it's these very concepts we attempt to employ in our escape. We've been sold a lie. In the past, escaping to seek counsel was much easier. There were entire unchartered continents boasting unique foreigners with novel, enlightening perspectives. Sure, technology has made these endeavours vastly more efficient, in terms of both time and work. But at what cost? It is my observation that in our advancements, we dilute our power to transmute our problems into solutions. Meanwhile, technology has not universally transformed the degree to which all members of our species cooperate. The shifting all of our burdens onto what we believe will save us, in this case technology, has been incredibly disempowering for us all. The problem has never been in our technology, or lack thereof; it was, and always will be, in us.
"It is now nearing mid-November and, despite a hurricane and a freak snowstorm and the general insanity that is this place, I’m still here."
That you are. If ever your answer to the question "Am I alive?" is "Yes", then your purpose here on this planet has most certainly not yet been realised.
You are going to make it.
Eyes open. No fear.