it appears that Amy Sutherland's New York Times article, "What Shamu Taught Me About A Happy Marriage," has caused quite a stir. it's a short and pleasant read, but i'll summarize.
as is often the case in marriages, Sutherland sought to change her husband because she found herself nitpicking and becoming annoyed at all his little habits (leaving clothes on the floor, getting angry over lost keys) - none of which warrants divorce by any stretch of the imagination, but do accumulate and fester in the mind. she tried the usual approaches (counseling, nagging) to no avail (the marriage counselor actually commended their communication skills). while researching exotic animal trainers for a book, she was inspired to utilize the same training and conditioning skills on her husband.
taking sides
depending on your gender, personality and life stage, you'll probably have different reactions to this article. as an amateur behaviouralist and an aficionado of couples' rapport in particular, Sutherland's cheeky writing tickled me. my first thought was, "hey, is this ethical?" i guess it is as ethical as training a baboon to skateboard, making it an argument for someone who cares about that sort of debate.
in any case, i agree with this method. it is certainly something that i have been considering (as a parenting technique - not that i have children) for quite some time before reading this. nagging only works by annoying the naggee to the point of relenting in that hopes that the nagger will shut up. negative reinforcement short of physical damage merely serves to push our rebellion buttons.
if it is not broken ain't broke...
though it is a stereotypical prejudice to say that women always try to change/customize their men, i believe it is pretty safe to say that this stereotype is grounded in truth. where men enjoy fixing and tinkering with objects (machines and anything else that could probably be broken with further fixing), women tend to enjoy fixing people, particularly significant others. i would say this behaviour stems from playing with dolls (that give little girls the feeling of complete control over the 'lives' of their friends), but it probably extends back far beyond the advent of Barbie. why else would women go for the "bad boy" even when there is a perfectly good housetrained gentleman available? this is not a bad thing. otherwise guys (in general) would never be able to get a girl to go out with them. here's a great pick-up line: "i have emotional baggage and your voice is a soothing balm to my ravaged soul, so will you bear my children?". i refer you to the remarkable number of wounded soldiers who end up marrying their nurses, but i digress.
the techniques mentioned are nothing new - positive reinforcement has been around since Pavlov rang his bell - and they work like magic. that is to say, lots of hard work practicing and perfecting without any guarantee that it will pan out. it's sort of like... marriage. well, fancy that coinky-dink. therefore, we can conclude that marriage is the magic of classical conditioning! right?
math
seeing as how i am unmarried, all i can do is speculate (and research anecdotally!) from a logical and Christian standpoint. and i have found that marriage is supremely difficult because it requires you to be completely selfish. you heard me.
but wait, aren't we supposed to be selfless and altruistic and whatnot?
this goes completely against our natural inclinations of self-serving, of ensuring that our own interests are paramount. should we go against our design? after all, it is far easier to put the spoon in your own mouth than someone else's. what people tend to forget is that marriage combines two individuals into one entity: "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31). a married couple should come to know each other so well that feeding each other becomes easier than feeding themselves.
so does trying to classically condition her husband to pick up his socks make the article's author the manipulative, man-eating, Beast-riding, she-devil of Babylon?
i see this more as a reasonable and positive approach to building each other up to become better partners. as you can see, i sort of ran out of energy towards the end of this entry. i was also a bit snarky in the middle because i'm not alright.
