Polymorphism Part II


From Polymorphism to Interdisciplinary Inspiration

In the previous piece, we have written a journey from computer viruses to love exhibiting signs of polymorphism. Here we attempt to try to draw ideas from different disciplines (this is at attempt at being a polymath to then come back to the topic on polymorphism). Let’s begin by debunking a popular theory, and then move through some inspirations I personally find to look at love being exhibited in different ways.

Love Languages

Many personality frameworks do not have any (or a weak basis) in psychology or science but enjoy great popularity across many demographics. These can arise due to the overly simplistic models said personality tests employ, vague language and the opportunity to allow the reader to believe they belong in a certain tribe simply through vagaries in language.

Add “love languages” to the mix.

In 2024, some researchers have critiqued the “theory” of love languages through quantitative research. (The paper is quite a fun read). One of the more startling results was that there exhibited little significance that such a “theory” led to improved relationship outcomes, and that, like a balanced physical diet, a balanced love diet (i.e. love being exhibited in different forms) was essential to a relationship.

An Attempt (Hopefully Not Foolhardy) at Simplifying Complexity

But the human craves simplicity, which is why such overly simplified (and highly inaccurate) models continue to enjoy incredible popularity in pop culture. Especially in a world full of information and lack of analysis, the human brain is often flooded with details that, without sensemaking, remain noise to be processed. Insufficient time for processing said detail often leads to a shutdown of the brain in relation to an often overwhelming, complex landscape such as an exclusive relationship.

One way of simplifying complexity in other domains is a somewhat painful, arduous exercise, but I find it quite useful: asking simple questions.

A return to some training in Physics provides some insights. Some questions that are quite familiar to a physicist can be adapted to dealing with complexity of this sort.

  • What are non-negotiables in our relationship? (i.e. a fundamental axiom check)
  • Can we simplify the problem, or reframe an otherwise complex problem into problems that are simpler, or problems that we can solve?

The first point is straightforward (if the first point cannot be ironed out, that is a much trickier issue), but the second point is perhaps of importance to many of us due to the complexities we encounter.

One common complexity arises from self. Within oneself, there are certain questions that do arise, from time to time, as psychological responses to the “balance” of said relationship (here I assume we are looking at a relationship where there is a strong attempt at maintaining some level of equitability across both partners).

These questions include:

  • Am I contributing my fair share to the relationship?
  • What does partner think of me? Am I active enough, or too passive?

Fairness questions are quite normal. After all, we have been taught, since young, the concept of fairness. Politically, many democracies run a “one man, one vote” system. We talk about “splitting the bill” or “going Dutch” on many first dates nowadays. And perhaps, we talk about “justice and equality” in the National Pledge. Clearly there are strong inclinations that we want to be seen as being a fair contributor, at least, and hope that I not be judged for it.

But questions of fairness can be difficult to bring up. For one, there is never one way to split the pie. Just as in one society, there exists “one man, one vote”, another society could attempt to vary this based on other aspects, which could be an argument of fairness with respect to another metric. Traffic fines in Finland are a good example, where fines scale based on income, as opposed to a fixed quantum. That is certainly more egalitarian, but whether it is “fair” may be a different story. And finally, in heterosexual relationships, it is a reality in life that there can be no perfect equality, and hence an attempt at being fair by attempting to be equal in as many ways and means possible can be seen as trying too hard.

Negotiation School to the Rescue

Here, there exists an inspiration from negotiation school. What we are trying to find here, in terms of a “balance” of said relationship, is really finding a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) in a negotiation. To find a ZOPA, one could introduce new asymmetries to the equation. For instance, in a household dispute over housework, it is possible to resolve such a dispute by introducing a new item to take responsibility for so that the other half might be willing to do more housework (a creative interpretation of Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage), to find a positive-sum outcome.

Moving away from business and economics lingo, we can also view this as embracing asymmetries in the relationship and identifying areas where each party is good at doing. In this case, it is not so much a micro question on “fairness” as it is an ability to look at a bigger picture and leveraging the strengths of each member of the couple.

Building Resiliency and Capability

Along the lines of polymorphic love, an underrated area in courtship is in ensuring a relationship persists. For couples who are highly similar, the “double blind” problem often results. Sometimes, the “double blind” problem is detectable. But the more insidious problems are slow-burn “double blind” problems that go undetected.

Problems can be examined from a resiliency and capability perspective. From the resiliency angle, we ask ourselves the question, “How much stress can we take?” And stress is inevitable. Arguments can result because someone is in a foul mood. Or perhaps something unusually turbulent happens (e.g. a job loss). And these issues will arise since bad happenings are part and parcel of life. Here, resiliency can come in the form of a support structure to vent, the ability to find trusted people as a listening ear, or even simply healthy stress coping mechanisms (the author admits to writing as one of them).

The capability angle resolves around finding the right parties that can identify the problem and solve the problem. In “double blind” relationships, the extent of similarity means two things: one, at least one of us will try to wear a different sub-hat from what we are used to. To mitigate “double blindness”, we take doses of desirable discomfort as we understand and play new sub-hats. Here a support structure comes in useful as well for the external counsel that can identify what the “double blind” folks fail to see.

But the inspiration for me in viewing it as a resiliency and capability building exercise comes from an “attack and defence” perspective. One analogy is as follows: resiliency – how much damage we can resist (as tanker), and capability – how much damage we could output (as sweeper) to KO the problem as a tag team (if you detected some competitive gaming parlance here, you’re right). And sometimes it is indeed a tag team: someone is better at soaking damage, and someone is better at outputting solutions. So perhaps the “double blindness” will eventually morph into either a tanker and sweeper, or hybrid roles we can take. Elite troopers always enjoy hybrid roles, but even the tanker/sweeper dynamic works well.

Since When Did You Write So Sappily?

Perhaps I am a little waxy and lyrical about some of my own views, but at least you know this isn’t a generic ChatGPT piece on love, i.e. these are some heartfelt thoughts.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 + 17 =