05-27-2021, 12:12 AM
Four words about decisions
Complexity, contradiction, inconsistency and ambivalence are among the most typical categories of human behavior, however what appears to be a defect has its reasons, because those categories are an adaptation to equally complex, contradictory, inconsistent and ambivalent environmental conditions. We can only make a decision in strictly logical form when it comes to deciding on strictly logical procedures. A “functional” decision-making criterion must always correspond to the environmental reality in which it is expressed.
When we talk about the consistency of a decision we generally mean the consistency of that choice with other behaviors of the same individual and we affirm that an "individual" is inconsistent if his decisions don’t always follow the same criterion (consistency of the person), but there is a another criterion of coherence, that is functional coherence, which is the coherence of the response with respect to environmental inputs. In this sense, an "individual" can be strictly coherent, even if his behaviors are clearly dysfunctional because they are not coherent with environmental inputs, as long as they are all dysfunctional in the same way.
Individual inconsistency is often a virtue because it can be the manifestation of an ability to adapt, that is, ultimately, the ability to identify functional responses in the face of changing environmental conditions.
There are right or wrong decisions only when it comes to deciding rationally, that is, when the consequences of the decision are strictly logical and predictable. Obviously, there are no rigorous decisions of this type except in theoretical or prefabricated scenarios.
The first step of a decision-making process is the analysis of the facts, which is not the simple knowledge of the facts but already involves a probabilistic evaluation of the possible consequences of the various decision-making hypotheses. The probabilistic uncertainty derives from the fact that the interpretative schemes of reality are not immutable standards but are individual characteristics that are also subject, in each individual, to vary radically even over time.
A functional answer is not a yes / no answer but an answer that consists in crediting higher or lower levels of probability to the possible consequences of the choice. Basically every choice is guided by a probabilistic prediction of the results based on behavioral models. When behavioral models are reductive and schematic the choices are rigid, when they are flexible the choices are less determined, they remain open to a plurality of potentials and, from the outside, they can appear contradictory, inconsistent and ambiguous and essentially dysfunctional.
Anyone who says that another individual is contradictory, inconsistent, or ambiguous judges that individual's flexible choices based on rigid patterns of behavior. He therefore judges the choices of an individual with parameters that don’t belong to that individual.
Alarming behaviors and redefinition of the relationship
Let's try to get out of the theory.
Let's examine as a first example a classic decision that each of us, sooner or later is called to make one or more times in life: how to react in the context of a couple relationship when the partner engages in behaviors that we consider alarming.
An alarming behavior of the partner leads to an overall re-evaluation of the relationship aimed at an adjustment of the relationship itself, an adjustment that can involve both the abandonment of the relationship and its archiving with various types of labels.
It should be borne in mind that the evaluation of a choice as more or less functional has nothing objective. In the same situation, a choice that can be dysfunctional for one subject could be perfectly functional for another. For example, severing a relationship in the event of betrayal is neither functional nor dysfunctional in itself, it is functional if the dissolution of the relationship takes place without aftermath, and is followed by feelings of satisfaction and liberation, it is dysfunctional if after the break depressive states and regrets take over. In any case, the consequences of the decision do not derive from the decision itself but from the decision "taken by a specific person" which also largely determines the consequences.
Couple relationships are mediated by the image of the partner that we have built for ourselves by mixing objective facts, personal needs and desires in the most varied and complex ways. It often happens that representations are not very realistic and projective elements are prevalent over the objective ones.
In the context of a couple relationship, all the “non-projective” evaluation criteria are based on the knowledge of the partner acquired through his speeches and above all through the acknowledgment of his behaviors. This knowledge is not static because the evaluation of the other's speeches and behaviors is subject to a continuous re-evaluation, which highlights some elements and devalues others, in this way the image of the other continuously changes and the elements of knowledge more recent or more frequently confirmed acquire greater importance.
The evaluations of the partner's behaviors are the result of a mix of selfish evaluations and altruistic evaluations, i.e. evaluations in relation to what I can hope to obtain from my partner (selfish possessive attitude) and what I can do for my partner (selfless affective attitude). The balance between these two components defines the individual attitude towards the partner.
The evaluation of the partner's speeches presents critical points related to the use of different communication codes and to the different scales of values of the two subjects. It often happens that we notice that the partner who "in words" says some things, then denies them in his behavior, as summarized in the classic statement "says one thing and does another" which raises doubts and perplexities. If one knew exactly the communicative code of the other, the doubts and perplexities would be less. Too often we take it for granted that our partner has an emotional history, a scale of values and communication codes similar to ours.
Most of the dysfunctional choices are dictated by haste, that is, basically by taking a decision without the necessary elements of knowledge and on the basis of a momentary short-circuit reaction. However, it also happens that the phase of acquiring the elements of knowledge is expanded to excess and leads to the perpetual postponement of the decision, waiting for "elements of certainty" capable of eliminating any doubt. It is the classic “deciding not to decide” which, however, runs counter to the fact that no new element of knowledge can definitively dispel any doubt.
Revocability of a decision and consistency
Since a decision is an adaptive response to environmental situations and these situations are subject to change and re-evaluation by the individual, it is evident that any decision should in itself be revocable. Irrevocable decisions, that is, considered definitive from the moment they are made, can also be functional, but when they are not they lead to very painful regrets.
Personal "consistency" is often invoked as an argument justifying the irrevocability of a decision with expressions such as: "I am consistent! When I have made a decision I don't change it!" but in some cases such a statement can be translated as follows: "When I made a mistake once, I keep making the same mistake." This rigid attitude is not the result of coherence but of "prejudice" or rather of an evaluation given "a priori" by refusing to take note of the facts and therefore in a radically formal way, regardless of any emotional evaluation based on the real knowledge of the other. The "prejudice" is the typical sign of affective indifference.
To revoke one's own decision appears to some as an act of weakness, that is, as a renunciation of one's own affirmation, a surrender to the other. Such an attitude is a sign of the low self-esteem of an individual who seeks confirmation in clearly marking what he considers his own victory over the other.
The "irrevocable" decisions of abandonment are often strongly emphasized, while those of recovery of the relationship are passed over in silence. The emphasis on abandonment through the denigration of the other and the attempt to blame him for the breakup of the relationship often serves to underline very weak motivations if not even to create non-existent motivations through the affirmation of one's own alleged consistency compared with the defects of the other. The recovery of the relationship, with the overcoming of the crisis, when it is really functional, is profoundly gratifying and leads to the re-evaluation of the other, previously belittled and misunderstood. In this case, statements such as: “I was wrong” are not seen as capable of diminishing self-esteem because they have a deep emotional and relational basis.
Decisions on the life of a couple in the gay field
In the gay field, decisions relating to couple life sometimes follow paths that are very different from those typical of straight couples, first of all because there is no problem of children and birth control and secondly, because the internal relationships of gay couples are usually much less conditioned by social reactions than those of heterosexual couples, because in general heterosexual relationships are not only a matter limited to the two partners but also involve their families in a very significant way. In the gay world, there are attitudes towards sexuality widely shared ad accepted which, at least in terms of visible behavior, would not be equally accepted in heterosexual environments, I am speaking for example of open couples.
The concept of a stable and rigidly monogamous couple is clearly in crisis even among heterosexual couples, but among gay couples it has never found wide application. There are certainly stable and monogamous gay couples, but we are very far from being able to consider this behavior as the rule.
It should also be remembered that among gays there are generally more intense levels of stress related to sexuality than those detectable in the heterosexual environment. Identifying oneself as gay, coming out and above all coming out in a familiar environment, something quite often impossible given the closed attitudes of parents, objective difficulties in looking for a partner and often in keeping a relationship absolutely private, in many cases create a state of strong emotional tension that can last for many years. Such state of stress can't remain without consequences on the life of the couple, which risks being mythically seen as the panacea for all ills or, on the contrary, as a substantially denied possibility. When a gay guy begins to build a "serious" relationship with another guy he realizes that he is experiencing an important and "rare" event, and he tends to load it with expectations and projections often beyond what an objective analysis of the facts would allow. The disappointment produced by the contact with reality can be heavy precisely because the expectations are oversized.
Building a stable relationship is difficult even when there is maximum availability on both sides, it is difficult in itself and for everyone, it takes time, partners need to know each other well, they have to inevitably proceed by trial and error and the emphasis on your own mistakes or on your partner's mistakes risks undermining the relationship in the bud. Perfectionist and hypercritical attitudes are dangerous in this sense. The search for "certainties" often denotes impatience, a hurry to have clear ideas immediately, and leads to request verbal confirmations, which are inevitable but not very credible, precisely because they are solicited by the partner. The classic question: "Do you really feel like starting a 'serious' relationship with me?" where the adjective 'serious' sounds more threatening than reassuring, should be answered in terms of possibility and sometimes with a little embarrassment, one could speak of hope, of desire, rather than of certainty, because in the emotional life there is nothing more deceptive than the "certainty" affirmed in words.
A couple relationship is always a bet on the future, it is not a decision to be made in a strategic way or in the abstract, and it still follows a "couple" logic rather than an individual one.
The typical problem of gay couples is represented by the "relationship level", because in a more or less improper way we speak of a "gay couple" both for relationships that are little more than superficial acquaintances, and for relationships that are quasi- matrimonial cohabitations. Also on this point we find ourselves having to make decisions and the idea that each of the two partners can make a decision on their own is substantially far from reality. You cannot be in a couple, at any level, if you don’t accept the idea of deciding together and when the decision concerns precisely the level of the relationship, it is a crucial choice. An error of choice made in good faith by the two partners can be easily corrected without consequences, while any attempt to impose one's own judgment is a substantial negation of the couple's life.