More in Honesty
Best Dating Sites
How Do I Date Again After a Long Term Relationship
By Anthony BerconiJan 21, 2016
I’ve long liked the irony of “Be sincere whether you mean it or not.” Today I notice how I live that irony.
On the one hand, I want expressions of love to be authentic. For example, I don’t want to be fooled about how my partner feels about me. I don’t believe in emotional coercion, anything like “you should feel this way!” It’s basically an invitation to keep me in the dark.
We don’t get to control our emotions so if my partner complies with my emotion-on-demand injunction she won’t really feel it. She’ll just act like she feels it and I won’t know what she really feels.
On the other hand, I think of partnership as merging ambivalences, and for that we need to keep up appearances sometimes.
When people say “partnership is based on total honesty” I remind them that you can’t afford to report on your honest everyday romantic fluctuations. It’s no good answering your partner’s “Do you love me?” with “Yeah, like 60% today. Higher yesterday and maybe again tomorrow but today you bug me and besides I was thinking about my ex this morning.” Appearances matter.
So how to reconcile my opposing views? Be sincere whether you feel it or not. Keep up appearances when you don’t feel it but are nonetheless committed to the plan to stay partners.
We use the term love to describe a transient emotion but also a policy, commitment, intention or plan.
“I love you” can be an expression of either.
Shakespeare Sonnet 138
When my love swears that she is made of truth,
I do believe her though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutored youth,
Unlearned in the world’s false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed:
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O! love’s best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love, loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her, and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flattered be.
Vital stats: Berkeley, 57, partnered, three children (M34, M28, F24), married once for 17 years.
Educationally: Ph.D. in evolutionary theory, masters in public policy
Vocationally: MBA professor of strategic foresight, business consultant and communications trainer, academic researcher.
Historically: I’ve taught over 250k college-student/hours in psychology, sociology, rhetoric, philosophy, advertising, economics, history, English, cultural studies, marketing and strategy. I founded a non-profit environmental lobbying organization in DC, worked as a business consultant and public affairs director for large companies, ran a foundation, designed and implemented water projects in Guatemala. For seven years I lived on the world’s largest hippie commune, and was an elected elder there at 24.
I never refer to myself as an expert in anything, but rather a specialist in those questions that interest me (see below). I write with no authority. I read lots but cite rarely in my articles which should be read as opinion pieces, not declaration of scientifically proven fact. I will not pull rank on readers: My ideas are only worth considering only if they’re based on good reasoning. I change my ideas over time. Caveat emptor. They say “don’t believe everything you think. I’ll go one further: I don’t believe everything I write, in that for every argument I make, I aim to be able to express convincingly the counterargument. I try to live by the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Self-expressively: I’ve written over 600 articles for Psychology Today, coined over 400 psychology neologisms. I write songs and limericks. I play bass and sing in jazz, Latin, funk, and Nigerian groups three nights a week.
Intellectually, yet intimately, my middle-age spread spans several life-sized questions.
* Most cosmically, how did mattering emerge from matter?, life from non-life? mind from chemistry? economics from physics? information from energy, questions I address as a member of a 16 year research project with UC Berkeley scientist Terrence Deacon.
* More practically, though not unrelated, how do and how should we shop among interpretations, deciding what’s significant and how to respond to what life deals us?
* Also practically and related, what is a butthead other than someone we butt heads with? since in a free society we should define morals negatively–not what you should, but what you shouldn’t do. We say “don’t be a butthead,” but define buttheads subjectively as people we butt heads with. I seek a more objective distinction between what’s morally in and out of bounds.
* How do and should we balance the ambigamist’s tensions and what is the underlying structure of such tensions? For this I use the Serenity Prayer as a template, and think about levels of analysis (going meta).
I’ve written five books, only one published but the rest out soon one way or another.
Negotiate with yourself and win: Doubt management for people who can hear themselves think.
Purpose: A natural history
Doubt: A user’s guide; a natural history
Mind readers dictionary: Terms for reading between the lines with greater comprehension.
Executive UFO: A field guide to unidentified flying objectives in the workplace.