Applied Romance

When one party in a relationship actively expends time and energy to seize and maintain frame, and reserves the right to dictate the terms of communication, the other parties must compete in an arms race, or be annihilated. In nations, this means annihilation of national identity. In business, being driven out of a company, out of a market, etc. In a romantic relationship, complete capitulation of the frame-controlled party followed by destruction of the relationship. The blame, of course, always falls on the loser.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race):

Generically, the term “arms race” is used to describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors. An arms race may also imply futility as the competitors spend a great deal of time and money, yet end up in the same situation as if they had never started the arms race.

Typically, arms races are both unreasonable and irrational, based in insecurity, fear, envy, desire or greed.

You know you’re in an arms race when you have the feeling of spending more and more energy to “keep up” while getting less and less in return. I’ll discuss how to break out of this destructive pattern below. First, some examples.

Arms Race Examples

The USA and USSR fought the Cold War using the notion of Mutual Assured Destruction, the only rational response to the insistence of one party dictating the terms of economic survival to the other. In the case of the Cold War, the soviet system proved ultimately defective as Reagan finally outspent the USSR, which suffered from an internal economic collapse.

An anecdotal story floated about Sun Microsystems a few years ago related a similar theme: IBM showed up with a stack of patents to extort some money (IBM was going broke at the time). When Sun indicated their willingness to fight, IBM brought in a larger stack of “violated patents.” At that point, the arms race was on. Sun paid off IBM and now invests a very large sum of money each year building an IP portfolio that serves little purpose more than defending Sun against costly litigation from competitors.

Within a romantic relationship, the same principle holds: the person with the most resources (time, money, emotion) to spend can control the relationship, if they so choose. In Practical Female Psychology (p. 137), The Ambush can be understood as an arms race: the woman at home is spending her time on the relationship while the man is at work. She has the time, he doesn’t. He gets home and walks right into her frame.

Evolution at Work

In evolutionary terms, arms races are very good business. The winner of an arms race controls all.

Arms race behavior is hard-wired into us. Children use an arms race on their parents time. Children simply have more time to spend manipulating adults than adults have to manipulate children. Attempting to manipulate children results in being sucked into the child’s frame. Dogs are the same way, as anyone who has trained dogs knows. Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, demonstrates this on a weekly basis. He shows that dealing with the dogs is easy: break the dog’s frame by simply having more willingness to stand around doing nothing, if that’s what takes. As he regularly notes, it’s the people who are so hard to train.

Whether frame controlling the relationship is the best long term strategy may or may not be apparent at the beginning. For example, women in many states (Colorado is notorious) have a vast number of resources available for escalating an arms race within a relationship. Due to very strict domestic violence legislation, the state provides an enormous amount of material, emotional and legal support for women victims of domestic violence. Men do not have these resources, and have to pay out of pocket for legal protection, whether or not the woman files charges (an allegation is sufficient in Colorado). The ultimate result of such behavior is well-documented: gradual economic destruction, generally for both parties in romantic relationships.

Breaking an Arms Race

In any situation involving an arms race, participants have 3 strategies:

1. Compete
2. Capitulate
3. Refuse to participate

Depending on the circumstances, such as mutually assured nuclear destruction, competing may be the only option.

Capitulation typically occurs when one party has exhausted all of his or her resources.

Refusal to participate may result in having a percentage (perhaps 100%) of one’s material or emotional resources commandeered by the winning party. Think Czechoslovakia, or, Paul McCartney.

In a romantic or business relationship, at some point, cutting one’s losses by refusing to participate may well be the best course of action. Painful as it is, there may come a time where one pick’s up one toys and goes home. The short term emotional pain and economic loss may really, really hurt, but will pass quickly compared to the long suffering resulting from “staying the course” in unsuitable relationships.

If you find yourself within an arms race, all is not lost! Recall the internet was developed during the Cold War as a way to communicate using EMP-damaged communications networks. Reframe destructive aspects of an arms race into healthy competition. Focus on doing what you do best. Let the other party or parties do what they do best.

Summary

Arms Race conditions:

1. One party assumes frame control.
2. Initiating party maintains frame by expending time and energy to stay ahead.
3. Initiating party reserves right to dictate terms of communication.

High energy or large time expenditure are indicators of arms race conditions.

Break the cycle by focusing on a bigger picture rather than relative positions.

Are you in an arms race? Tell us about it!