Persuade me

[Mr.Burke]

Apparently a lot of people (not talking about these boards) are upset over the fact that I do not develop or value "genuine relationships". They are specifically referring to the process of emotional bonding.

I would like someone to explain in a logical fashion as to why I should pursue such relationships. References to experiences could help as well.

 

[Sugarpop]

It makes me feel good. It might make you feel good. Have you tried? Do you think it would hurt to?

People are differently constituted, but I think most of them benefit from good emotional bonds.

 

[Mr.Burke]

It makes me feel good. It might make you feel good. Have you tried? Do you think it would hurt to?

People are differently constituted, but I think most of them benefit from good emotional bonds.

It is a possibility, but I do not think it is likely.

One of the problems here is that an "emotional bond" is a very ambiguous term. What exactly constitutes such a thing in the first place? Until I know that, I can't really accurately say that I've tried to form such a thing.

And because I don't even know what that is, I would obviously have trouble forming it.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Human bonding is an integral part of the development of infants and children and it basically allows for humans to form social groups and thus society as we know it. While it can be encouraged or discouraged, it's hardly a voluntary thing, so I doubt that you'd never had such bonds. More likely that you expressly deny the existence of such bonds, because you dislike that people have such power over you without your consent.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Human bonding is an integral part of the development of infants and children and it basically allows for humans to form social groups and thus society as we know it. While it can be encouraged or discouraged, it's hardly a voluntary thing, so I doubt that you'd never had such bonds. More likely that you expressly deny the existence of such bonds, because you dislike that people have such power over you without your consent.

Hmm. Well you said what bonding results in, but you didn't say what it actually is.

It's possible that I deny the existence of such bonds, but I wouldn't really know if I was denying such.

I leave people at any time, and it doesn't really matter to me that they are no longer in my presence. Does this show that I'm not really bonded to them? If it makes no difference to me whether a person lives or dies, can you really say that I'm denying such bonds? Or is it that the bonds simply are not there?

 

[Jennywocky]

Human bonding is an integral part of the development of infants and children and it basically allows for humans to form social groups and thus society as we know it. While it can be encouraged or discouraged, it's hardly a voluntary thing, so I doubt that you'd never had such bonds. More likely that you expressly deny the existence of such bonds, because you dislike that people have such power over you without your consent.

I tend to see it more like that, although in Object Relations study we typically see a few different patterns of parent/child bonding and one includes the ambivalent/withdrawing pattern style that often is experienced by INTP types.

But in any case, maybe we should distinguish between emotional bondss and practical bonds. The practical bond is not dependent upon the level of emotional bond experienced, so it's possible to function in reliable relationship (I'd guess) even if something other than deep-seated emotional connections are driven it.

On a more personal level, though, once I started to get states of emotionally bonding with others, my life experience improved tremendously. Part of it is just fear of being enmeshed in someone else's life. I still flip back and forth between the two sometimes... of desiring the closeness of the bond, but being kind of fearful of being tied down to another.

I don't think people can invest in others who don't seem committed to them in return. If someone is getting complaints about not being in "real relationships," it sounds like they feel taken advantage of in terms of what they feel they are emotionally investing vs what they are getting back -- it's not a good investment for them. Chances are you haven't yet really experienced what it means to get cut off from others in the practical ways once they feel like their emotional investment is not being reciprocated, so maybe your value for the relationships will change once you start suffering a lot of pullback from people. Maybe you'll be okay with however that stabilizes, if you're already very independent to start with; but it might lessen the richness of life and could make practical issues more difficult as well.

 

[ApostateAbe]

May it have an effect if I cited scientific studies that show that people in relationships live healthier and longer and are more financially successful than those who don't?

 

[Mr.Burke]

Hmm. I think I form "practical bonds" and not emotional bonds. In other words, I "associate" with those who I believe will provide me with a direct and reliably implemented benefit. I treat them as someone I am working with and not on a "human level".

Also, people frequently tell me that I just haven't "found the right person".

I used a lot of quotes there to show the ambiguous nature of most of the terms used. The quotes often indicate that I wouldn't actually normally use the phrases contained between the quote marks, and that I'm only using them for some perception of simplicity (basically I lack a better word to use).

 

[Mr.Burke]

May it have an effect if I cited scientific studies that show that people in relationships live healthier and longer and are more financially successful than those who don't?

Well, I'm not sure. Those could be considered to be benefits, but it seems like studies can show anything. Even if that was true, I'm not sure I care too much about making a lot of money or living longer.

 

[Mr.Burke]

I don't think people can invest in others who don't seem committed to them in return. If someone is getting complaints about not being in "real relationships," it sounds like they feel taken advantage of in terms of what they feel they are emotionally investing vs what they are getting back -- it's not a good investment for them.

This is interesting. Hmm. I'm still not sure as to how this would work though.

If I don't care about the person, then what can I do? Also wouldn't "taking advantage" of somebody mean that I'm exploiting their emotions in order to get some sort of practical benefit out of them?

To me it's like this. You pull over to the side of the road in your car, and then after a few minutes a homeless person walks up and begins washing your windows. After he is finished, he then demands a payment for his service. I didn't ask for his service, so why should I have an obligation to pay him for it?

It's basically the same way for emotional investment. I don't care for most people, and yet they still expect me to care about them.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think you probably are exploiting other people without realizing you are doing it -- mainly because you don't perceive the investment they are making in you is being driven by a need for emotional reciprocity, and your not giving it is automatically being perceived as not caring about other people.

I doubt you would take things directly without offering something in return, you're probably too autonomous for that.

Before I comment on the rest, what relationship do the complainers have with you? Are they family? Friends? Who, exactly?

If they are just nameless bums on the street, then I'd be inclined to agree with you; but I doubt a nameless bum would be complaining about your lack of emotional reciprocity.

 

[Fukyo]

Human bonding is an integral part of the development of infants and children and it basically allows for humans to form social groups and thus society as we know it. While it can be encouraged or discouraged, it's hardly a voluntary thing, so I doubt that you'd never had such bonds. More likely that you expressly deny the existence of such bonds, because you dislike that people have such power over you without your consent.

Maybe he's a sociopath.

 

[Mr.Burke]

I think you probably are exploiting other people without realizing you are doing it -- mainly because you don't perceive the investment they are making in you is being driven by a need for emotional reciprocity, and your not giving it is automatically being perceived as not caring about other people.

I doubt you would take things directly without offering something in return, you're probably too autonomous for that.

Before I comment on the rest, what relationship do the complainers have with you? Are they family? Friends? Who, exactly?

If they are just nameless bums on the street, then I'd be inclined to agree with you; but I doubt a nameless bum would be complaining about your lack of emotional reciprocity.

I agree that I am probably exploiting without realizing it. Those reasons seem legitimate as well.

I accept free stuff. I'm not necessarily fair. I do try to create some sort of situation where both parties get what they want (compromise), but even still it's always somehow in my favor (usually without them realizing it).

There are many people who complain about my lack of emotional investment. Basically all of my family, their friends, and a lot of random people over the internet all complain about my lack of investment. I think of my family as essentially strangers. Just because they are related in some way does not mean that I have an obligation to invest anything in them. Just like the homeless people I mentioned.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Well, I'm not sure. Those could be considered to be benefits, but it seems like studies can show anything. Even if that was true, I'm not sure I care too much about making a lot of money or living longer.

Well, then what do you care about?

 

[Mr.Burke]

Maybe he's a sociopath.

I wouldn't doubt it, but people tell me not to label myself. Because I clearly don't know myself. Clearly.

 

[Oblivious]

imo, its not that you do not have feelings for other people, you just do not know that they are there. You might not have strong feelings towards most people, but most people do not either.

If you do not have attachments to things that many people do, it just means you have different preferences. That is perfectly fine. It seems to me that you particularly like Mr Burke, and if you knew a person in real life that was like Mr Burke, you would not mind getting to know them. At least if they were not as homicidal.

I will say that being able to get along with anyone is a valuable asset. Being able to read people, to motivate them and to know what they want is a very important skill in life.

Or you could, you know, develop a second personality to have conversations with.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Well, then what do you care about?

That's very hard to say, really. The short answer is: not alot.

I enjoy very few things, and care about very little. I care about things in the short term, and usually only for that immediate period of time. For example, I may enjoy a piece of music at some point, but I don't become "attached" to it. I move on to something else. I am very prone to boredom, and my interests shift a lot.

I think I probably care about simply having the power to do whatever I feel like. If you're asking about my hobbies or something, you'll need to specifically ask that.

 

[Mr.Burke]

imo, its not that you do not have feelings for other people, you just do not know that they are there. You might not have strong feelings towards most people, but most people do not either.

If you do not have attachments to things that many people do, it just means you have different preferences. That is perfectly fine. It seems to me that you particularly like Mr Burke, and if you knew a person in real life that was like Mr Burke, you would not mind getting to know them. At least if they were not as homicidal.

I will say that being able to get along with anyone is a valuable asset. Being able to read people, to motivate them and to know what they want is a very important skill in life.

Or you could, you know, develop a second personality to have conversations with.

It's possible that I have feelings for other people, but if I do then I am absolutely and completely <your username> towards them.

Yes, I suppose I do have different preferences. This results in a lack of connections. Maybe that results in a lack of investment? I don't like Mr.Burke, I just like the nature of his speaking.

Hmm. That's very subjective. When do I need to motivate people? I'm not a coach or leader.

Also, I've already done that. I get bored of talking to myself though. I can't really mess with myself like I can other people.

 

[ApostateAbe]

That's very hard to say, really. The short answer is: not alot.

I enjoy very few things, and care about very little. I care about things in the short term, and usually only for that immediate period of time. For example, I may enjoy a piece of music at some point, but I don't become "attached" to it. I move on to something else. I am very prone to boredom, and my interests shift a lot.

I think I probably care about simply having the power to do whatever I feel like. If you're asking about my hobbies or something, you'll need to specifically ask that.

ok, so do you think it is easier to do whatever you feel like with emotional bonding or without it?

 

[Mr.Burke]

ok, so do you think it is easier to do whatever you feel like with emotional bonding or without it?

Hmm. You probably won't like this answer, but I would say that it doesn't matter either way. I can usually do whatever regardless as to whether I'm investing emotionally or not. So it's about the same.

For example, I don't need to emotionally invest in a person to listen to music. And that's what I often do (listen to music). So even if there was an emotional investment in a person (what), then I could still listen to music.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Hmm. You probably won't like this answer, but I would say that it doesn't matter either way. I can usually do whatever regardless as to whether I'm investing emotionally or not. So it's about the same.

For example, I don't need to emotionally invest in a person to listen to music. And that's what I often do (listen to music). So even if there was an emotional investment in a person (what), then I could still listen to music.

That's totally cool with me. Live like a hermit. When you want to do something that is better achieved with friends, then you know you will need friends.

 

[Mr.Burke]

That's totally cool with me. Live like a hermit. When you want to do something that is better achieved with friends, then you know you will need friends.

Right, that is assuming that I do something that specifically requires other people.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I would like someone to explain in a logical fashion as to why I should pursue such relationships. References to experiences could help as well.

If you're speaking of superficial relationships-you shouldn't. It's just more stress that you don't need.

However, genuine relationships are beneficial not only for you but for them. You can go places with people and not become bored with your thoughts, you can trade off your theories with other people, and even if they aren't intellectuals, it's great to have that feeling of 'us against the world'.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Right, that is assuming that I do something that specifically requires other people.

If you could live your entire life without needing friends, then that is cool. I mean it.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Well you have already demonstrated an attachment to music, even if it's not a particular piece. I doubt one can enjoy music from a purely logical perspective.

I don't think you're a sociopath for admittedly subjective reasons. As I once thought I was utterly incapable of emotion, and that any I did display was just mimicry (and this was before I knew about the MBTI, and the Chameleon effect). However in hindsight, after much self-experimentation, I realized I was just repressing it as a sort of coping mechanism.

You seem more repressive than sociopathic to me and from what I've observed of you, you definintly have emotions, and probably legitimate human bonds. You just have a rather odd way of expressing it and your natural inclination is to minimize the effect they have on you.

Though if you're so bored, you should try to consciously develop an emotional bond. There's nothing that over complicates life quite like emotional attachment. Consider it an experiment if you will.

 

[Mr.Burke]

If you're speaking of superficial relationships-you shouldn't. It's just more stress that you don't need.

However, genuine relationships are beneficial not only for you but for them. You can go places with people and not become bored with your thoughts, you can trade off your theories with other people, and even if they aren't intellectuals, it's great to have that feeling of 'us against the world'.

Hmm. I will argue for what you're saying here for the purpose of my argument.

Let us suppose that I wanted to have a genuine relationship with some person. How could I go about actually caring about them? What do I even have to do to establish in my mind, "this is an interesting person that I want to be a meaningful friend with."

 

[Mr.Burke]

Though if you're so bored, you should try to consciously develop an emotional bond. There's nothing that over complicates life quite like emotional attachment. Consider it an experiment if you will.

Hmm. How would I go about doing that?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Hmm. How would I go about doing that?

You could always start small, rescue an animal for example. I'd recommend a kitten, bottle feed it if necessary, look after it, protect it, it will form a bond with you and you probably with it. Domestic animals are generally easier to form bonds with than with humans. That's why you get so many kids who cry like there's no tomorrow over a dead family pet, but only feel a generalized awkwardness towards a dead or dying Grandparent.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think I probably care about simply having the power to do whatever I feel like.

Yeah, I think it's an overall lack of ability to commit, in general, and establish ties that people are picking up on. You state it as a pervasive aspect of your personality, not just related to people.

But you can't ever really excel at a task that you don't persist in, or develop a specialty or career; and the same goes for relationships... not unless you basically give up some degree of freedom in order to create a tie and commitment. I've found it very hard myself to decide what was worth committing to (and thus what options to give up)... so for a long time I didn't commit to much at all... except my tendency was to drift into commitments rather than remaining detached. I learned that, unless I actively decided my commitments, I still tended to end up making them, but they might REALLY not be ones I wanted.

You could always start small, rescue an animal for example. I'd recommend a kitten, bottle feed it if necessary, look after it, protect it, it will form a bond with you and you probably with it. Domestic animals are generally easier to form bonds with than with humans. That's why you get so many kids who cry like there's no tomorrow over a dead family pet, but only feel a generalized awkwardness towards a dead or dying Grandparent.

That's an interesting idea.

I definitely agree on the last part, too -- kids are far more upset about relevant losses rather than losses that are personally irrelevant even if they involve relatives. My own kids are the same way; and I remember crying in high school over having our dog put to sleep (and I did not particularly even like the dog), but I didn't cry over my grandfather's passing... but I only saw him twice a year at best. I specifically remember sitting there THINKING about that... how the dog was more important to me than my own relative and not knowing what to make of it, except that perhaps it was to be expected since I didn't see my grandfather.

 

[Mr.Burke]

You could always start small, rescue an animal for example. I'd recommend a kitten, bottle feed it if necessary, look after it, protect it, it will form a bond with you and you probably with it. Domestic animals are generally easier to form bonds with than with humans. That's why you get so many kids who cry like there's no tomorrow over a dead family pet, but only feel a generalized awkwardness towards a dead or dying Grandparent.

Hmm. My parents had dogs who created puppies together. I used to attack the puppies when other people were not around. I found the range of their cries to be amusing. I've never liked animals. I've probably beat every animal in the nearest 200 feet over the course of living here.

Therefore, I don't think your solution would be a good idea. Isn't there something else?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hmm. I will argue for what you're saying here for the purpose of my argument.

Let us suppose that I wanted to have a genuine relationship with some person. How could I go about actually caring about them? What do I even have to do to establish in my mind, "this is an interesting person that I want to be a meaningful friend with."

Well, there is affection and then there is devotion. Obviously the former is a result of some attraction that you have for them, but the latter is a result of being open with yourself and the friendship. This of course takes some development, the more time you spend with someone, the greater the attachment is-even if you don't have much in common or do not find them very interesting at first.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Well, there is affection and then there is devotion. Obviously the former is a result of some attraction that you have for them, but the latter is a result of being open with yourself and the friendship. This of course takes some development, the more time you spend with someone, the greater the attachment is-even if you don't have much in common.

Hmm. I am usually not attracted to people, but I am very open. The problem here is when you said that time results in attachment. I don't think that has ever been the case for me. I don't even understand why that would be the case either.

Why would time even be a factor in that?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Well that implies anger/power issues over detachment.

You're lucky you didn't live near me then, the last time I saw someone abusing an animal I chased them down and put the fear of adaire into them.

Though really what's to stop such a pattern of abuse from carrying on to humans? ie if you ever had a child, would you treat it the same way?

 

[Mr.Burke]

Well that implies anger/power issues over detachment.

You're lucky you didn't live near me then, the last time I saw someone abusing an animal I chased them down and put the fear of adaire into them.

Though really what's to stop such a pattern of abuse from carrying on to humans? ie if you ever had a child, would you treat it the same way?

The "fear of Adaire". More like "a minor laugh through the nose".

Anyways, I probably wouldn't. I think I would let the other person do all the attachment. I wouldn't have children in the first place though.

Oh, I forgot to mention the thing about the anger issues. I don't think that attacking animals for amusement necessarily is an effect of such an issue. I merely did it because it was funny to watch puppies rolling across the floor like a bowling ball and hitting the other puppies (who are all covered in urine and feces).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Why would time even be a factor in that?

Time spent with another creates experiences, ones that make you feel. I cannot fully explain the irrationality of it all, but you become emotionally attached. That person is no longer just another human, they would then mean something to you, something more than just another human. That connection evokes devotion to sustain the friendship.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Time spent with another creates experiences, ones that make you feel. I cannot fully explain the irrationality of it all, but you become emotionally attached. That person is no longer just another human, they would then mean something to you, something more than just another human. That connection evokes devotion to sustain the friendship.

Hmm. How can someone be worth more than what they provide? That just seems silly.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hmm. How can someone be worth more than what they provide? That just seems silly.

That, my friend, is friendship.

 

[Mr.Burke]

That, my friend, is friendship.

So it's sharing experiences with a person over time which magically results in an emotional bond? Uhh.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Not magically, chemically. It's Science!

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Why is it that no one pays attention to qualifiers or indicators of 'or'?

Anyway pray tell why it is 'amusing.' If by slight chance you aren't trolling, it would carry over. You like individual power, and you find having power over others weaker than you 'amusing.' Part of relationships is giving up personal power, for influence over another. If you would abuse that influence, then it's best to avoid such a circumstance.

Is there anything completely divorced of yourself that you value? Don't say that's illogical either, it's just as irrational to value yourself over others. You are merely one insignificant unit of humanity, no more, no less.

 

[Melkor]

Can't be bothered.

Ask me when I'm frisky.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Why is it that no one pays attention to qualifiers or indicators of 'or'?

Anyway pray tell why it is 'amusing.' If by slight chance you aren't trolling, it would carry over. You like individual power, and you find having power over others weaker than you 'amusing.' Part of relationships is giving up personal power, for influence over another. If you would abuse that influence, then it's best to avoid such a circumstance.

Is there anything completely divorced of yourself that you value? Don't say that's illogical either, it's just as irrational to value yourself over others. You are merely one unit of humanity, no more, no less.

Hmm. I don't believe I've expressed superiority over other people. I'm human just like other humans. I don't necessarily find power over others to be amusing, I simply like to do whatever suits me at the time.

For example, a person might expose their vulnerabilities to me, and then I end up exploiting them. I wasn't trying to get them to submit to some perception of me having power, but more like I was gathering information from them and experimenting with possible types of responses that they would give.

I don't go around trying to exploit people with an objective in mind, I think I just treat others like data.

And as far as value, no, I'm not sure if I value anything beyond myself. I think that it is absurd to place value in anything that does not benefit you in some way.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Why value yourself? Especially if you are a universal detriment, one could only logically presume you had negative value. A huge problem in the US is that people value themselves over the whole. While individually that makes sense, in the end it cause detriment to the whole and all the individuals involved. Individual value cannot compare to the value of the whole.

It is just as absurd to value oneself, as it is to value anything.

If everyone in the world comprised of you, would it not devour itself?
Why do you not value cooperation? Human ingenuity? Progress? All this takes cooperation and compromise on the part of the individual for the sake of the whole. Emotional bonds act almost as a catalyst for this to be possible.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not advocating the sacrifice of self, merely a symbiotic compromise for both elements.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Why value yourself? Especially if you are a universal detriment, one could only logically presume you had negative value. A huge problem in the US is that people value themselves over the whole. While individually that makes sense, in the end it cause detriment to the whole and all the individuals involved. Individual value cannot compare to the value of the whole.

It is just as absurd to value oneself, as it is to value anything.

If everyone in the world comprised of you, would it not devour itself?
Why do you not value cooperation? Human ingenuity? Progress? All this takes cooperation and compromise on the part of the individual for the sake of the whole. Emotional bonds act almost as a catalyst for this to be possible.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not advocating the sacrifice of self, merely a symbiotic compromise for both elements.

Valuing myself is simply a means of survival. My body tells me to do it. And my body brings the bread home. Literally. I can't do much about what my body wants except to provide for it (as a slave).

I don't value those things on the basis of believing other people to be mostly idiots. Cooperating with some poop throwing monkies isn't going to do me a whole lot of good. Progress can be neat, but there will always be some animalistic attitude where people just want to experience essentially the milking of their senses. And then you get Brave New World, etc.

But on a more practical note, it would be better to find a way to emotionally connect (to basically conduct a field test as to see whether it is overrated or not) than to argue about various values and meanings.

Like I've said many times over again, I don't get along with people even if they haven't done anything. The mere presence of people is enough to make me hostile. I'm not afraid of them really, I just dislike the fact that they are in my presence without clearly accomplishing some sort of objective. It seems illogical (their presence, not my disliking).

 

[Deleted member 1424]

eh the body (and the mind) can be manipulated easily enough once you meet the core needs.

Might I point out you're reaping the benefits of civilization (ie human cooperation) and of human bonding. Look at it like torrents, do you seed or do you leech? Millions of leechers couldn't sustain a torrent, much less a society.

Anyway if you don't experience loneliness (basically your body/mind demanding human contact) you're not likely to be motivated enough to pursue or maintain deeper relationships. After all it's the main reason people expend the effort.

 

[Jennywocky]

Might I point out you're reaping the benefits of civilization (ie human cooperation) and of human bonding. Look at it like torrents, do you seed or do you leech? Millions of leechers couldn't sustain a torrent, much less a society.

That's kinda one of the implications to the point I was making earlier -- he's benefitting from other people, even if it's not purposeful.

We can't not be connected if we're at all in human society... and I don't think any of us weren't born to another human being and in their complete care for a number of years, let alone the bulk of human society.

We all have taken.

 

[BigApplePi]

Apparently a lot of people (not talking about these boards) are upset over the fact that I do not develop or value "genuine relationships". They are specifically referring to the process of emotional bonding.

I would like someone to explain in a logical fashion as to why I should pursue such relationships. References to experiences could help as well.

I can think of three reasons:

1. They provide cold-blooded connections if you need something for which you can trade what you have.
2. As long as you keep the relationship, they provide protection in numbers.
3. If you enjoy something alone they might enjoy the same thing thus providing expansion.

BTW I think of "emotion" as graded from hot passion to the mildest desire.
===============

After reading this entire thread quickly, scratch the above. You asked for a "logical explanation." You won't get one because emotional bonding is not logical. Or rather is not directly logical although there is reason behind it.

Let me ask you a question. Dropping people for the moment, do you feel "bonded" at all to this thread? Or if you wish to abandon it, did you feel bonded (a strong connection) at least for the moment? My guess is you did because you were very careful and must have been interested in replying because you did so for practically everyone who talked to you.

Note that you asked for personal experiences. I did not provide any though I could. Why should I?

 

[Minuend]

^ Bonding is very beneficial to the individual. I don't really see what's so "illogical" about it. As mentioned, people with a good social network live longer, healthier and are happier. You always know that people are there for you no matter what happens and that's a strong psychological motivator. You feel safe, appreciated and like you belong somewhere. The feeling itself is a rewarding one. Humans are social creatures.

Emotions are a crucial part of the human psyche, without them we would loose judgement, direction, motivation etc.

I wonder, though Mr Burke; Why do you ask?

 

[BigApplePi]

Minuend you can convince me but that is because I've been there, though not as deeply as I might wish. One cannot bond just like that any more than one can mail order a bride to fall in love with or purchase a true friend at the store (or some party). There are prerequisites to bonding and Mr. Burke has given clues that some things are in his way. We are not clear on what they are.

 

[MatthewSawyer]

I wonder, though Mr Burke; Why do you ask?

I am inclined to think, based on skimming this thread (and not examining it in detail) that the answer is "to see what you reply."

This may seem obvious, but to me, it is worth making a couple distinctions:
- I do not think the answer is "to have a genuine discussion and to personally examine your (plural, general public) replies."
- Also, I do not think the answer is based on "a genuine desire to build such relationships because Mr Burke feels they would fulfill some void in his life/psyche."

My intuition may be wrong. I think it was once.....