[HN Gopher] Are you a baby? A litmus test
___________________________________________________________________
Are you a baby? A litmus test
Author : mooreds
Score : 391 points
Date : 2022-04-04 13:51 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (haleynahman.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (haleynahman.substack.com)
| billllll wrote:
| Why is being avoidant "babying" yourself and thus bad?
|
| Taking the first example of arriving early at a dinner party with
| hosts you aren't familiar with, why do we need to bully ourselves
| into arriving early? From my perspective, the "adult" thing to do
| would be to wholly own whichever decision we make and the
| resulting consequences. Not showing up earlier with means you
| lose out on a great chance at making a meaningful connection with
| someone new, but it's more comfortable and hey, sometimes we're
| just out of social energy, that's okay too.
|
| Taking the second example of a building mosh pit, if a large
| group of people are moshing, and all your friends are
| comfortable, maybe it's a sign that things are safer than you
| think. In that case, I would think that staying would provide an
| opportunity to move outside of your comfort-zone and maybe
| experience something new, and that's definitely not babying
| yourself. Nor is it treating your friends as babies, since you
| are relying on their judgment. And as the author states, we're
| also free to move to the back: that's not treating anyone as a
| baby either. In my mind, the key is again owning the decision and
| the consequences.
| lubesGordi wrote:
| In the 'Electric Koolaid Acid Test' they'd call this 'being out
| front.'
| thrwy_ywrht wrote:
| I find it a bit strange that the author leads with the example of
| wanting to "blind cancel", and then suggests that maturity and
| communication is the real answer to that scenario.
|
| People sometimes seem to imply that if we could just select the
| most appropriate types of language, and only express our true,
| heartfelt feelings, then our language will never cause pain.
|
| But that's just not true. Sometimes your friend may also secretly
| want to cancel, but other times your friend will be hurt by
| knowing you want to cancel the plans you made together that they
| have, for whatever reason, been really looking forward to. And
| sometimes there _doesn 't exist_ a way to communicate your true
| feelings without potentially causing pain. Being mature and
| communicating truthfully cannot solve this problem. Often times
| the solution is to suck it up and stick to the plans -- but that
| has nothing to do with communication.
| jonahx wrote:
| >And sometimes there doesn't exist a way to communicate your
| true feelings without potentially causing pain. Being mature
| and communicating truthfully cannot solve this problem.
|
| That's because it's not a problem.
|
| The point of the article is that it's babyish to be so fragile
| that a friend cancelling plans causes you great pain, or so
| guilt-ridden that you can't bring yourself to cancel. In both
| cases the solution is not to avoid the feelings, but to become
| stronger.
| grog454 wrote:
| I agreed with your first sentence but not the rest. It's not
| a problem because pain is not inherently a problem.
|
| Yes it's going to hurt to find out someone doesn't want to go
| through with plans. It's going to hurt even more to find out
| they really don't enjoy your company as much as you thought
| they did, or as much as you do theirs. But how is keeping
| your head buried in the sand going to be more beneficial in
| the long run?
| jonahx wrote:
| We're saying the same thing.
| thrwy_ywrht wrote:
| >It's going to hurt even more to find out they really don't
| enjoy your company as much as you thought they did
|
| This is the crux of the issue. There are many people who
| often feel like cancelling on plans, but it is absolutely
| _not_ because they don 't enjoy their friends' company. It
| might be because they have a mood disorder, or chronic
| fatigue, or social anxiety, etc etc. The whole reason
| someone might _want_ an app that lets you cancel on plans,
| but only if the other person also wants to cancel, is
| _because_ it 's almost impossible to express this feeling
| to someone without that person drawing the conclusion, to
| some degree, that you enjoy their company less than they
| thought.
|
| If you genuinely don't enjoy spending time with someone,
| that's a much easier problem to solve.
| em-bee wrote:
| if you cancel without telling me why then i am even more
| likely to draw the (wrong) conclusion. and if you, and if
| i wanted to cancel too, then i am still going to wonder
| why you wanted to cancel. the only way to avoid
| misinterpretation is to state the reason outright.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Giving a reason could be part of the process.
| bumby wrote:
| > _The whole reason someone might want an app that lets
| you cancel on plans_
|
| I know this is HN where we are probably all biased
| towards creating software solutions, but do you _really_
| think software is the right lever to this problem?
|
| The root cause is that people don't feel psychologically
| safe enough to voice their wish to cancel. I don't know
| that an app really helps that, it just provides an escape
| hatch. I'd much rather a person say to me, "Look, it's
| nothing about you, but I struggle with social anxiety and
| it's getting the best of me right now and need to
| cancel." Not only would that give me greater compassion
| for what they're going through, it would also help tailor
| future outings to alleviate that. Just having a "cancel
| matching" app won't do anything to foster that kind of
| growth.
|
| To me this feels like one of those distinctions between
| "can" and "should" in tech.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > I know this is HN where we are probably all biased
| towards creating software solutions, but do you really
| think software is the right lever to this problem?
|
| I'm not sure how you got that impression from that
| sentence, especially because the word "want" was
| emphasized.
| bumby wrote:
| I'm sorry, I'm not following. I'm assuming someone would
| want something because they feel like it's a solution to
| their problem. In this case, I'm saying I think software
| is the wrong "solution" because it just treats the
| symptom (get me out of this obligation) and not the
| underlying cause (provide psychological trust). Did you
| interpret the sentence differently?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They want the supposed benefit. That doesn't mean they
| think the mechanism is correct, or even that any
| mechanism could actually do it in a non-abstract way.
| bumby wrote:
| That's kinda the point of the last sentence in the my
| original comment. People may desire an app that optimizes
| their ability to connect with drug dealers. It's
| certainly possible from a technical standpoint. It
| doesn't mean it's a good idea.
|
| Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social
| engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is
| probably not a good idea because those interactions are
| exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of
| the guilt in the first place.
|
| Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the
| software solution exists, just that that desire for such
| an app may be misplaced.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social
| engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is
| probably not a good idea because those interactions are
| exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of
| the guilt in the first place.
|
| The interactions of possibly cancelling things? I don't
| know about that. And expecially the interactions of
| cancelling things both people want to cancel? That
| doesn't seem notably trust-buildy to me.
|
| > Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the
| software solution exists, just that that desire for such
| an app may be misplaced.
|
| And I'm saying the desire isn't specifically for an app,
| and shouldn't have given you that impression that the
| poster thought software was "the right lever" in the
| first place.
| alar44 wrote:
| > It might be because they have a mood disorder, or
| chronic fatigue, or social anxiety, etc etc.
|
| This is a babies excuse. If you're an adult, you should
| be actively dealing with this. However, it has become
| fashionable to wear a psychological condition on your
| sleeve. People who use this as an excuse have likely
| never been diagnosed and probably aren't even trying to
| deal with it. Either way, those are their battles, and if
| it means they are flaky, we just won't be friends. I've
| done the hard work to get myself out of a social anxiety
| disorder and can easily tell who actually has similar
| issues and those who are just lazy flakes.
| jonahx wrote:
| >is because it's almost impossible to express this
| feeling to someone without that person drawing the
| conclusion, to some degree, that you enjoy their company
| less than they thought.
|
| Not only is it not "almost impossible" -- it's easy.
| Especially if you have a reputation for being honest.
|
| "Listen, I am feeling like shit right now, and won't have
| fun if we go out. It's got nothing to do with you. Can we
| reschedule?"
| librish wrote:
| The problem is that this is what people say even when it
| does have something to do with you.
| jonahx wrote:
| I mean, in the same sense that it's "a problem" when a
| con man gives the same pitch as a trustworthy salesman.
|
| The solution isn't for the trustworthy to stop honestly
| describing their products. It's to gain a reputation for
| honesty.
|
| Also, you'll the know the truth from the context of your
| overall relationship, or, if that is thin, when they do
| actually reschedule.
| librish wrote:
| Yes but empirically the chance of someone rescheduling is
| low.
| nkrisc wrote:
| You can't control what other people think about you.
| Better to just tell the truth instead of trying to shape
| their opinion of you.
| mgfist wrote:
| So? It's not your responsibility for someone else's
| insecurity - and in fact, if you stop to assume that they
| think this way, you'll find that they 9/10 times do not.
| librish wrote:
| I'm not sure how responsibility plays in. Being bluntly
| honest lowers your chance of making friends, in my
| experience.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| By the author's metric, I think this statement would be
| "Active" if it were an honest statement, i.e. you're
| actually sick, but it would be "Avoidant" if it is
| deceptive
| Koji8 wrote:
| neogodless wrote:
| I always found the "Boundaries" (Henry Cloud) distinction
| here very useful.
|
| It's OK to "hurt" someone - that is, if you are
| communicating the truth, your boundaries, your needs, you
| may hurt someone.
|
| It's not OK to "harm" someone - that is, you do
| intentional/lasting damage to them through your actions.
| (My wording is not nearly as on point as the original
| author, but I hope you get the gist.)
|
| Here's a snippet:
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/654449-there-is-a-big-
| diffe...
| thrwy_ywrht wrote:
| >The point of the article is that it's babyish to be so
| fragile that a friend cancelling plans causes you great pain,
| or so guilt-ridden that you can't bring yourself to cancel.
|
| My reading of the scenario is not that the person is too
| "guilt-ridden" to bring themselves to cancel - it's that they
| only _mildly_ want to cancel, for frivolous reasons. They
| want to find out if the other person also mildly wants to
| cancel. The point is, in many relationships it is simply not
| possible to find this information out, because asking "how
| much do you want to keep our plans" in and of itself reveals
| that you want to cancel.
|
| You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to
| cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will alter
| the outcome.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I don't think that's quite right. It's not that they mildly
| want to cancel some plan, but rather that they don't really
| want to do it and are only going along with it because they
| think the other person wants to do it. Thus the
| hypothetical app would solve the situation where both
| people are doing something only because each thinks the
| other person wants to do it, but in fact neither wants to
| do it and neither wants to disappoint the other one by
| telling them they don't want to do it.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| The other branch of this post's children, from thrwy_ywrht
| is a perfect example of the sort of neurotic overanalysis
| that the article's talking about. It's extra cute that the
| poster is using a throwaway account.
|
| Some of the decisions you make in life will run counter to
| other people's expectations. The strength you get, and
| demonstrate to them as well, from communicating your
| intentions is in acknowledging you can't "protect their
| feelings" and aren't trying, and that you have the respect
| for them as well to manage and regulate their own feelings.
|
| Good people will understand and forgive minor infractions.
| This isn't license to freely commit any infraction. It's
| just an acknowledgment of everyone's fallibility.
| watwut wrote:
| > It's just an acknowledgment of everyone's fallibility.
|
| You are not describing failure there. You are describing
| the "I made plans I feel like cancelling and don't care
| about other person".
|
| Them reacting negatively is healthy self presentation
| instinct. Because if this is your strategy, you will
| cancel regularly and they are better off finding more
| reliable friends.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| Feels like we're maybe saying the same thing?
|
| I'm saying:
|
| * People are fallible. They will sometimes commit minor
| infractions, either accidentally or with sincere remorse.
|
| * Good people will forgive minor infractions.
|
| * This is not a license to commit infractions with
| abandon or remorselessness, or of any major size, and
| expect forgiveness.
| jonahx wrote:
| >You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to
| cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will
| alter the outcome.
|
| I get it. Again, the point is, so what? Take the
| measurement and alter the outcome. Or decide you're the one
| being the baby and keep the plans.
| jazzkingrt wrote:
| I agree when it comes to plans.
|
| But in general, aren't there some cases where we want to
| moderate our communication based on how it will be
| received? Honesty is the right default, but not
| universally correct.
|
| The classic example is that it might be preferable to
| tell someone that a dress they just bought looks good on
| them.
|
| I think as children we tend to be too honest, and then
| overshoot as teens or young adults by worrying too much
| about social acceptance. And we have to find a middle
| ground.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to
| cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will
| alter the outcome.
|
| There are 101 ways to addresses this. "How are you feeling
| about the plans" is simple enough if two people are being
| honest with each other.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I agree. I've had lots of these kinds of interactions--
| it's definitely possible to "put out feelers" on whether
| someone is really excited about a thing or just going
| along with it.
|
| Yes there is a slight risk that that action will put a
| damper on the other person's interest, but it's not a
| huge deal to recover from-- either by amping yourself up
| to assure them that you really are excited for the thing
| they're excited about, or taking the initiative the next
| time to make a thing happen that you know you can be
| excited about and follow through on.
|
| I've definitely also triggered the damper reaction
| accidentally in the past when just trying to make an
| innocent inquiry about a start time or something, so even
| if you rarely do it for real, it's good to understand
| these dynamics and how to navigate them.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the whole thing stems from fear of others seeing
| you as you truly are.
|
| If you are on the fence and not excited, that.. is
| reality and you can own it. You dont have to hide it, but
| it may have some consequences.
|
| I think people would be happier if they spent less time
| hiding behind deceptions, and more time managing the
| consequences.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I think for me a lot of it is just the knowledge that
| often I end up really enjoying and feeling good about
| activities that I may not have been all that excited for
| at the outset-- fitness stuff like swimming or going for
| a bike ride are obvious examples.
|
| So it's not just a matter of me being _deceptive_ , it's
| also the internal conflict between my lizard brain ("stay
| home and do nothing, so great") and my thoughtful brain
| ("you enjoyed this the last time, give it a chance, ya
| dummy"). The not-being-a-baby for me is having the
| executive function to go do a thing that I know I'm
| probably going to end up being glad I did, while not
| wanting to be a wet blanket for everyone else by letting
| them all know upfront that I'm not there yet.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I completely agree and think that is normal for a lot of
| people. I was just saying that is perfectly reasonable
| and healthy to explain this to someone else if you choose
| to reach out to them.
|
| EG:
|
| Person 1: Do you still want to do X?
|
| Person 2: Yes, why?
|
| Person 1: I just wanted to check in. I usually get
| (anxious, lazy, scared) before this kinda thing. I know
| I'm going to end up being glad I did.
|
| This is a normal conversation and builds healthy
| relationships, but for some reason people are often
| hesitant to say how they feel and want to put on a
| facade. It is a lot easier to be candid than
| internalizing it and lying.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I think it's appropriate to get upset when someone cancels. I
| think it is more adult to only commit to something you intend
| to follow through on.
|
| Life happens. Sometimes some people cancel. But if you're one
| of those people always canceling plans, be prepared to find
| your invites become less frequent, and people not planning
| things around what you say.
|
| I've come to the point where if I don't know whether I want
| to do something I say "I'm not sure yet I'll let you know"
| and then _always_ actually fess up and let them know one way
| or another, or say "yes" or "no" and follow through no
| matter how I feel. And I expect the same of people, people
| who get to know me who are used to peer pressure find
| themselves initially worried about saying no, but then I
| find, pleasantly refreshed when I just say "OK." People that
| flake a lot though get annoyed with me, because I hold them
| to what they say and give them a hard time if they don't
| follow through.
| watwut wrote:
| This does not sound like being strong or mature.
|
| This just sounds like insulting people for having feelings
| and hoping that since you called it "babyish", they will be
| insecure enough to not argue with you.
| [deleted]
| ewidar wrote:
| I think you're missing part of the author's point.
|
| Yes, as adults, we are bound to "cause some pain" as you put it
| in some mundane situations, such as cancelling a plan that
| someone else has been looking forward to.
|
| But her point is that what matters is expressing and discussing
| with your friends in that scenario:
|
| - Tell them you don't feel like going out after all, maybe
| you're drained by work and need some time to cool off
|
| - They could answer that it's fine, they don't mind going out
| alone
|
| - Or maybe they'll propose to just stay in at your place for a
| quick dinner, just to catch up for a bit and let you rest
|
| - Or they could let you know that they really _need_ to go out
| with you, as they are going through a rough patch
|
| - At that point you have a better idea of what different
| options you both have, and you can make an informed decision
| either way, deciding between your needs and your friend's
| needs.
|
| - etc...
|
| Obviously if that friend is important to you and you've already
| cancelled 3 times then maybe suck it up a bit. It's all a
| matter of context.
|
| The point is that you should start by not avoiding that
| interaction with your friend for silly reasons, and relying on
| tech/tricks is not going to help for long.
| dleslie wrote:
| > People sometimes seem to imply that if we could just select
| the most appropriate types of language, and only express our
| true, heartfelt feelings, then our language will never cause
| pain.
|
| Accepting the inevitability and utility of pain is part of
| being an adult. Childhood should teach us how to handle pain
| and mitigate the pain we cause, but not to avoid it
| unnecessarily.
| mdoms wrote:
| You're missing the point. The desire to bail out of a social
| commitment is the problem, not the way you're doing it. Blind
| cancelling or coming right out and saying it are both baby
| behaviour.
| adewinter wrote:
| >> I find it a bit strange that the author leads with the
| example of wanting to "blind cancel", and then suggests that
| maturity and communication is the real answer to that scenario.
|
| I don't think that's the _only_ solution the author is
| suggesting. She also goes on to mention "...self-knowledge:
| Will you be in the mood next week?". In other words, don't make
| plans if you're not confident you won't break them. Similar to
| the idea of "hell yes or no" as a response to social requests.
| If you don't have a strong sense for stuff you like/don't like
| doing and how you'll feel about social situations in the future
| that's going to be tough.
| em-bee wrote:
| no matter how much i look forward to an activity with a friend,
| if they don't want to go, then i want to know, i'd rather
| cancel or reschedule than have someone be secretly miserable.
| the relationship itself is more important than my feelings
| about it. for a close friend, avoidance is damaging to the
| relationship, talking about it, strengthens the relationship.
|
| sucking it up quietly is the wrong answer.
|
| sometimes there may be a situation where canceling causes
| problems for the other person, but you only find out by talking
| about it and if you end up going anyways after you tell them,
| they will appreciate it even more that your friendship is worth
| so much that you are willing to be uncomfortable for their
| sake.
| caddemon wrote:
| It really depends on the situation IMO. "Sucking it up
| quietly" doesn't necessarily mean that the entire event will
| be unpleasant. Sometimes it is more like the activation
| energy necessary to stick to an exercise routine - if I had a
| draining work week I'll have low motivation to go out, but if
| I do "suck it up" I'm usually happy at the end of the night
| that I did.
|
| The social pressure to "suck it up" can actually be an
| awesome motivator for healthy behaviors, e.g. committing to a
| rec sports team. So there is definitely variation here. You
| need to know not just how important the event is to your
| friend, but also yourself.
| em-bee wrote:
| right, it depends, if the thing that agreed to has some
| other benefits.
|
| an alternative example would be after that draining work
| week cancelling an activity because i know i'll be tired
| the next morning and i really need more rest to be fit the
| next day.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Sometimes your friend will want to cancel _and_ be upset when
| you feel the same.
| allenu wrote:
| I enjoyed this post. Choosing what actions to take when there
| isn't a clear right or wrong is really what makes being an adult
| interesting.
|
| I've found that it helps to ask if the thing that I'm avoiding is
| something that is reasonable for me to accomplish and something
| that will help me grow, such that perhaps if I encounter it again
| I can handle it better. If so, I should take action instead of
| avoiding it.
|
| In the case of the mosh pit example, staying in the pit even if
| you didn't want to didn't really give you any growth
| opportunities, unless you were really eager to "learn" how to
| mosh.
|
| Going to the party when you didn't want to, although possibly
| awkward, was such a growth opportunity. It afforded a chance to
| flex social skills, and the downside was likely overstated. In
| the future, should such a scenario arise, the author can now deal
| with it much more easily.
|
| I think we have deep feeling of "I didn't do what I should've"
| (and a sense of personal failure) when we choose to avoid action
| and we recognize that we've denied ourselves a growth
| opportunity. Our analytical brain may not pick up on it to form
| the thought, but I think we still know it.
| ajkjk wrote:
| I like this article, but I wish it was phrased "are you being a
| baby" instead of "are you a baby". Labeling oneself as wholly a
| particular attribute is one of the mechanisms by which anxiety
| takes root: you _are_ or _aren't_ something, full stop. Labeling
| actions or states shifts your mindset so that you can clearly see
| this is something you're free to change. It's the sort of thing
| that makes no difference at a factual level (they're logically
| equivalent! right!?) but emotionally the tone shift makes a huge
| difference.
| mdoms wrote:
| Presumably no actual babies are reading the article so I think
| it's quite clear what the author means.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| Excellent point. I try to do that on HN: differentiate between
| describing how you interpreted what they typed ("said something
| greedy and childish") rather than a value statement about that
| person ("you are greedy and childish"). Easy to forget
| sometimes, but super important to separate the words/actions
| from the person. We all say/do dumb shit sometimes that is out
| of our normative character for all sorts of reasons.
| rilezg wrote:
| I certainly agree that it's important to leave people room to
| change who they are, but if a person isn't defined by their
| actions, then what are they?
|
| I guess it is polite discourse these days to distance a
| person's actions from some intangible person-ness, but it
| feels very mushy.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| "I guess it is polite discourse these days to distance a
| person's actions from some intangible person-ness"
|
| Are you acting obnoxious or are you obnoxious?
| rilezg wrote:
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)
| ajkjk wrote:
| A person is perhaps defined by _all_ their actions, but
| they're not very definable by a single action, out of
| context. That's the kind of reasoning that writes someone
| off if they make a mistake, which is totally intolerant.
| rilezg wrote:
| That's fair. I would say a person is defined by what they
| do next.
|
| I think what you're saying is that you should be careful
| telling someone that they 'are a baby' or 'are dumb',
| because they might believe you.
|
| I would also be careful of telling someone they are
| 'acting like a baby' or 'acting dumb', because most
| people won't appreciate the semantic difference.
|
| In the context of this article, though, I'm not too
| bothered since the article is about how one can change
| their baby-like habits. But it is always a good reminder.
| ajkjk wrote:
| I'm not really so concerned with what you tell someone
| else, but what you end up telling yourself can be pretty
| important and stick with you for a long time. an article
| like this is mostly targeted at one's perception of
| themselves, and if you read it and start to adopt the
| model that that "you are a baby" when you act that way,
| you might have adopted a slightly less healthy model than
| you could have.
| dymk wrote:
| It seems blindingly clear what the author means, and if one
| isn't going to connect with the article because they're hung up
| on "is acting like" versus "is", they weren't going to get it
| anyways.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Why do you think it's "blindingly clear"? If you're going to
| use such strong language, it should be easy to present your
| argument in a more convincing way. Others disagree with you -
| I think calling them wrong without so much as a single line
| to suggest why is very much "being a baby". You think others
| should just agree with you because it's what YOU think - my
| five year old niece seems to think this way as well.
| dymk wrote:
| The person I'm responding to acknowledges that "is a" &
| "acts like a" are equivalent in the context of the article.
|
| If somebody is getting hung up on something as nit-picky as
| that, they're not going to see the forest for the trees in
| an article like this.
|
| Ironically, playing nit-picky semantics games like this is
| the kind of avoidant attitude that lead people astray from
| personal growth.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| You're literally doing what OP is objecting to, and it is
| making you act like an ass, or are you just an ass? Which
| do you prefer, or am I nit picking? :)
|
| EDIT: Guess you understand now.
| ajkjk wrote:
| Yeah, my point is exactly that although it is clear at a
| language level, the terminology shift can be quite important
| for whether you end up with a thought process that's healthy
| vs entangled with anxiety. If you don't believe that --
| perhaps you haven't dealt with a lot of anxiety in your life?
| drnonsense42 wrote:
| Reading this thread is surreal. If this is the litmus test for
| being an adult, we've really jumped the shark as a society
| (certain groups, anyway). It's like watching a group of
| domesticated cats debate which characteristics makes them a
| tiger.
| charles_f wrote:
| Reminds me of _The testaments_ (the sequel to _handmaid 's
| tale_). There was a bit on that fact that no-one actually wanted
| for Gilead to happen, but the movement started too fast and
| everyone was too scared to diverge. It took a life of its own.
|
| I think this is a legitimate social behavior where for various
| reasons you don't want to divest from a commitment (don't want to
| be an outlier, FOMO, don't want to hurt people, ...). Ideally you
| would fix that through communication, but we're also human after
| all, and have to deal with reality of social constructs and
| culture. You don't always have the emotional capital with people
| to just bail. Sometimes you're in a situation where you know
| that, were you to bring up that you'd prefer not to do something,
| the other person would immediately cancel to accommodate, even
| though the cost (emotional, not $$) for you to do it is lower
| than the cost for them no to do.
|
| And then sometimes you enter a loop about something scary that
| you only do because your friends are in. A year ago I did my
| first major multi-day ski touring traverse. A physically and
| psychologically taxing thing, where once you're committed in it,
| you don't have a choice but complete (you can't ski down, you
| _have to_ finish the loop, no matter how hard it is). I was
| scared AF, trying to find a good excuse to skip. It didn 't and
| we did it, and it was the best thing I've done in all 2021.
| Talking about it afterwards, turns out we were all in that mental
| space, scared and only motivated by the fact that we'd do it
| together. If _1_ person had emitted doubts, we would have all
| bailed. In the end, luckily no-one did.
|
| So I don't think the idea behind it is necessarily bad, and I
| don't think you're a baby for not telling someone you're not
| ecstatic about something.
| omginternets wrote:
| The author obliquely touches on this, but my sense is that people
| need to cut themselves a lot more slack. A large part of becoming
| an adult is learning to navigate ambiguous social signals, and to
| make decisions without the comfort of having another adult's
| prior approval.
|
| My advice to 20-somethings is to be gentle with themselves. The
| "boot-strapping, we-can-do-hard-things motivational speaker" talk
| isn't so much wrong as it is ascetic. As it turns out, you can be
| a responsible, virtuous and respectable adult without being so
| damn hard on yourself. In fact, I think I became an adult the
| moment I recognized that the child in me needed some care, and
| that I alone could provide it.
|
| EDIT: on second thought, my wife provides a fair bit of that too,
| and I for her.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| That's a fair point. But also, it may not be the right advice
| for 20-somethings who are already being _too_ gentle with
| themselves, which is the audience I think the author is trying
| to reach.
|
| Advice falls on a spectrum, and whether to follow it or not
| rests much on your present circumstances versus the advice
| giver's.
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/24/should-you-reverse-any...
| omginternets wrote:
| I see your point, and even agree that "coddled 20-somethings"
| are a real and worrying phenomenon. Where I respectfully
| disagree is with the idea that the ascetic, protestant-work-
| ethic, hard-truth-telling, pull-yourself-together rhetoric is
| helpful to them. Even Jordan Peterson, who is arguably the
| epitome of that category, explicitly recognizes that the way
| forward is through incremental baby-steps. To wit: he (along
| with essentially every clinical psychologist) recommends
| aiming for small victories (make your bed, get your car's oil
| changed, etc.) and rewarding oneself, say, with a cup of
| coffee on the way home.
|
| It's in this sense that I think hardlining oneself is
| counter-productive. Worse, I think it's even _more_
| counterproductive for coddled youth. The way to pull oneself
| up by one 's bootstraps is gently, or at least,
| compassionately.
| teekert wrote:
| I love this, it's very recognizable. I love how structured this
| is. This is to me what the books of Ayn Rand were about: rational
| self interest. Rational as in social and kind, but with a healthy
| regard for the interests of the self (good luck figuring those
| out btw, but man is it important in almost all aspects of life).
| Ayn Rand to me was not about being anti- or pro-state, or about
| the "motors of the economy" that deserve to reap the benefits.
| Rational self interest was my primary take away from Howard Roark
| and Dagny Taggart.
|
| Aren't those people that wouldn't be with you tonight (or at any
| time), if they didn't really want to, the best people to be
| around? Those people that are with you because they genuinely
| want to be, they should be treasured. What value is there in
| those others? What are they doing with their lives anyway? What
| are you doing dragging your feet again and again to places you
| don't enjoy? Do you even remember what you, YOU, really enjoy? I
| struggled a lot with this. In this sense, Ayn Rand helped me
| "grow up" as OP puts it. Yes, Roark goes way further than I would
| probably ever go, but Roark is not me and I enjoy a bit of
| harmony seeking in a group (up to a certain level that is), or
| setting an atmosphere. Ayn made heroes out of entrepreneurial,
| intelligent loners, imho that is not a core requirement of her
| philosophy (or way of life). It is about knowing the self, also
| when that self is more of a social animal, a bit of pleaser from
| time to time even.
|
| Imho it is true that self-esteem correlates with how much joy you
| will let yourself feel in life. Too much and you hurt others, too
| little and you hurt yourself. There must be a balance.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| > Technology babies us all the time.
|
| Technology is a symptom; not the disease. We wallow in narcissism
| and convenience because of the relatively enormous wealth we, and
| our country in general, enjoy. Being able to buy just about
| anything that we want (at least some version of it), and being
| able to insulate ourselves in a tiny bubble of like minded people
| and thought has infantilized us. Technology -- enabled by the
| wealth of the Western world -- has enabled it, but wealth is at
| the core. We can AFFORD to be babies. So we are. Boy, howdy! We
| are.
| douglee650 wrote:
| One of the most neurotic pieces I've read; that said, I
| understand now that a lot of people are not comfortable with
| their identities, that they are still "trying things on"
| [deleted]
| anarticle wrote:
| Pretty impressive someone took the time to even write this.
|
| If you are going to anything: BE ON TIME. We have more reasons
| than ever to be on time or even early, live directions, maps,
| scheduling. Things happen and some times can be non-exact, that's
| totally fine. But if you're showing up 2h late to a show, or
| event on the regular there are issues you need to fix in your
| life. How did people without smart phones manage!?
|
| If you cancel/try to reschedule a group event the same day, more
| than once, it is unlikely I will ever give you a concession on
| time or place in the future because you're a pain in the ass.
|
| I've had these kinds of main character friends who will cancel on
| an event the morning before, then offer a reschedule that same
| day to a later or earlier time. Repeatedly.
|
| This signals to me: "I am more important than the other people
| that are coming, so they should change their schedule for me." No
| thanks. I'll drop you a note when everything is happening but
| until you hit the mark I'm gonna disregard everything you say. It
| has driven my other friends crazy to their point they have asked
| me: "Hey what's up with your friend Emily?"
|
| Other people have lives, just like yours!
|
| Don't offer to come in the first place if you can't make it.
| There are times when you can't make it due to an emergency, and
| that's fine, car breaks down, relationship issues, work
| explosions, w/e.
|
| You can be busy, or whatever I don't give a shit, it's your life
| sort it out. You can't do everything. You made too many plans: I
| don't care. You decided something else was more important at the
| last minute: This one is a guarantee I'm inviting you to less
| things. This seems harsh, but do this rodeo more than a few times
| and it will make YOU crazy. Also, "neurotic freak" is a weird way
| to write "jerk".
|
| Probably there is a huge selection bias here as I have two
| friends that are now less good friends due to whatever this
| cancel algorithm is. I've lived it and fixed it! :D Save yourself
| a click, read Nonviolent Communication, and improve your life.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| > flag if you were open to canceling a plan, which your friend
| would only see if they also flagged it.
|
| I've had this idea for indicating along a series of steps of
| being willing to advance a relationship without harming it by
| expressing your desire for the next step too early for the other
| person. It would have real value I think because there really is
| potentially ruinous cost to being perceived as jumping the gun.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| It's interesting to see how this author used to look like, and
| contrast that with what she looks like now. IME, attractive
| people generally feel they have a license to be shitty to others,
| and won't have any self awareness or remorse about it.
|
| Once the looks fade, then the self-reflection and introspection
| begins. It is difficult to be introspective and humble when
| you're in the 99th percentile, when you feel like you're on top
| of the world.
| niek_pas wrote:
| Would you have made the same observation if the author had been
| a man?
| mise_en_place wrote:
| Yes, and it would be doubly true. Attractive men behave in
| the stereotypical alpha manner, very aggressive without any
| empathy. Society will excuse them because they are attractive
| and wealthy.
| maps7 wrote:
| > Attractive men behave in the stereotypical alpha manner,
| very aggressive without any empathy.
|
| I have rarely found that statement to be true.
| djmips wrote:
| I think your premise has some merit however it doesn't seem to
| be appropriate to this particular person or topic.
| divs1210 wrote:
| This has been done conclusively a long time ago.
|
| Owning a Doink-it [0] is the only proof you're not a baby.
|
| Why we are even discussing this is beyond me.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eb5sNjhItw
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Not even sure what 'this' is any more. Someone taking micro
| daily decisions for her own personal pleasure/displeasure and
| it somehow being an example for everyone else.
| glitchc wrote:
| The key bit here is communication: An adult communicates their
| rationale for a given situation while also acknowledging that the
| rationale may not be shared by others. In the old days we called
| it sticking to your principles.
|
| For the dinner party, it's perfectly okay to be late if the
| lateness is communicated ahead of time to the host and the reason
| is a valid one. "Afraid to meet you on my own" is not a valid
| reason.
|
| Canceling or ghosting is not a valid reason period.
| irrational wrote:
| > "Afraid to meet you on my own" is not a valid reason.
|
| Why is that not a valid reason?
| em-bee wrote:
| it's a valid reason for yourself, but it's a reason that is
| difficult to communicate.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If it's a legitimate fear, it's not really compatible with
| "dinner party".
|
| If it's just anxiety, then it's valid to feel but is not a
| valid _reason_ for doing much of anything.
| bumby wrote:
| While an apt distinction, I think it's important to
| acknowledge that one's body and subconscious often cannot
| distinguish between "anxiety" and "fear" even though our
| higher level faculties may.
| watwut wrote:
| Imo, real adulthood is to recognize that adults communicate in
| variety of ways. Real world adults are not and never were
| perfectly communicating non-emotional beings.
| glitchc wrote:
| It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be tried.
| Adults make an attempt to communicate, especially in social
| settings.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I thought "sticking to your principles" meant that you
| persisted in your course of action or thought convinced that it
| was the best one, despite other people's objections.
| pbohun wrote:
| I think a better way of explaining "sticking to your
| principles" is to not succumb to temptation or social
| pressure to do something wrong.
| danuker wrote:
| > "Afraid to meet you on my own" is not a valid reason.
|
| Sure it is. Maybe you're about to meet an ex who used to beat
| you.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| One shouldn't attend such an event.
| tfigment wrote:
| Unless its necessary like custody exchange of children or
| similar required event.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Yes, sure. But we were talking about social events.
| glitchc wrote:
| This is outside the context of the example though. Here the
| author has accepted an invitation to a dinner party where
| she's meeting the hosts for the very first time. I think part
| of becoming an adult is mastering, or at least masking,
| social anxiety of participating in new interactions. That's
| because there's no way to know whether you will like or
| dislike the other person until you actually talk to them.
| Only kids throw tantrums and back out because they're too shy
| or too immature. Adults don't have that luxury. That's the
| thrust of the author's position.
| em-bee wrote:
| right, but the thing is that the situation has changed. if
| i am invited to a party where i don't know anyone except
| the one person that invited me and then that very person
| has to cancel at the last minute, i might consider not to
| go. it has been said elsewhere in this thread it depends on
| whether this is an opportunity for me to grow or not and
| whether that benefit outweighs the cost.
| glitchc wrote:
| This isn't about growth but rather about social
| etiquette. In this case, although your friend is the
| reason you attend, it is the host who has officially
| invited you to the party. Now, the invite and acceptance
| are between you and the host directly and social
| etiquette requires a clear communication in case of a
| cancellation.
|
| From the host's perspective, you are still attending
| until you cancel. Of course people do the social calculus
| all the time and can choose to bail without notice. It's
| been done for centuries, but is considered poor form in
| most circumstances except emergencies. In almost all
| cases a "sorry, I am unable to make it tonight," is
| usually sufficient.
|
| Of course if the host never officially invited you in the
| first place and you were simply tagging along, there is
| no social obligation and you are free to do as you
| please.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| As with so many criticisms of "technology that enables laziness,"
| this analysis ignores disability. Yes, it's a good thing to
| communicate with your friends! However, if you have significant
| social anxiety, "Tinder for bailing" could be a useful assistive
| technology. (And before you say "get therapy" - yes, of course,
| but that takes time and people should be able to live their lives
| whether or not they meet arbitrary standards of normal behavior.)
|
| Largely a good article, but before you decry the plastic widget
| that holds the book open, consider that some people are missing a
| finger.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I think she touches on this point a bit with this paragraph:
|
| "Technology babies us all the time. "Never talk to a wage
| worker again!" the embarrassing Seamless ads promise in so many
| words. "Everything you could dream of without leaving your
| apartment! Community without communing with a single soul!"
| Putting aside the marginal good these apps do for people who
| rely on them, their ads are clearly focused on a capable,
| upper-middle class that's learned to take its neuroticism a
| little too seriously. They exploit what probably started as
| compassion-driven conversation about burnout into a recursive
| push for comfort at all costs. When we stretch that ethic to
| its limits, we make simple things like taking a phone call or
| being honest with a friend into something much scarier than
| they actually are."
| munificent wrote:
| I think the author of this post would likely respond by noting
| that people with disabilities are not babies and can maturely
| handle that an article decrying an app doesn't necessarily
| apply to them and is not trying to rob them of an assistive
| tool.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| > is not trying to rob them of an assistive tool.
|
| The first anecdote in a post is about the author deciding not
| to build something that could be a useful accessibility tool,
| specifically because she sees it as a net negative - which
| might not be how she would think about it if she'd included
| people with disabilities in her analysis.
|
| Of course, this is not the end of the world; but there are
| cases where this kind of thinking could be much worse. "We
| won't put in an elevator - people should be okay with the
| discomfort of climbing the stairs." In fact, people did that
| so much that we had to pass the ADA to stop it!
|
| I am reminded of https://imgur.com/a4p4KLa.
| munificent wrote:
| As someone who is currently in therapy for social anxiety,
| I think it is quite a stretch to equate an app that helps
| people ghost each other without feeling bad with elevators
| for people who can't physically climb stairs.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I wasn't equating them; I explicitly said that the latter
| was much worse.
| hbn wrote:
| How many people are experiencing day-to-day anxiety /because/
| they were enabled to avoid social interactions for so many
| years through apps and services like this?
|
| If the plastic widget for holding books open is occasionally
| lopping off fingers so you need to use it more, it might be
| worth decrying.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| > How many people experiencing day-to-day anxiety /because/
| they were enabled to avoid social interactions for so many
| years because of apps and services like this?
|
| That's a great question! I would love to see some data on
| this, but until I do, I don't really see any reason to
| believe this. Anxiety disorders are not a new phenomenon.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journa
| l...
|
| > Recent accounts suggest that levels of social anxiety may
| be rising. Studies have indicated that greater social media
| usage, increased digital connectivity and visibility, and
| more options for non-face-to-face communication are
| associated with higher levels of social anxiety [32-35].
| The mechanism underpinning these associations remains
| unclear, though studies have suggested individuals with
| social anxiety favour the relative 'safety' of online
| interactions [32, 36]. However, some have suggested that
| such distanced interactions such as via social media may
| displace some face to face relationships, as individuals
| experience greater control and enjoyment online, in turn
| disrupting social cohesion and leading to social isolation
| [37, 38]. For young people, at a time when the development
| of social relations is critical, the perceived safety of
| social interactions that take place at a distance may lead
| some to a spiral of withdrawal, where the prospect of
| normal social interactions becomes ever more challenging.
| shakezula wrote:
| Honestly, I think a large part of my peer's (I'm solidly
| millennial) social anxiety stems from never having to deal
| with a lot of uncomfortable situations.
|
| I'm old enough that I remember a chunk of life pre-internet.
| Having to use corded the phone to call hang out with your
| friends, having to talk to parents and strangers to get a
| hold of your friends, calling a date to have their parent
| answer, having to knock on doors for church, etc... all built
| me up to have basically no qualms with talking to strangers,
| but certain younger close friends of mine can't answer the
| phone for the food delivery to give them the door code to
| their apartment.
|
| It blows my mind sometimes, but I genuinely do consider it a
| consequence of technology enabling them to avoid doing those
| things regularly.
| basisword wrote:
| >> As with so many criticisms of "technology that enables
| laziness," this analysis ignores disability. Yes, it's a good
| thing to communicate with your friends! However, if you have
| significant social anxiety, "Tinder for bailing" could be a
| useful assistive technology. (And before you say "get therapy"
| - yes, of course, but that takes time and people should be able
| to live their lives whether or not they meet arbitrary
| standards of normal behavior.)
|
| As someone who has done the therapy I can tell you that that
| app, while it may help you in the short term, is only going to
| make things so so so much worse in the long term - to the point
| where you can't live your life anymore. Medicating social
| anxiety with avoidance is similar to medicating pain with
| drugs. It just gets worse and worse until it's worse than you
| ever imagined. Every time you don't avoid something you're
| taking a step in the right direction. If possible I'd highly
| recommend therapy :)
| NoraCodes wrote:
| > Medicating social anxiety with avoidance is similar to
| medicating pain with drugs. It just gets worse and worse
| until it's worse than you ever imagined.
|
| The implication here is that there is always an alternative
| to medicating pain with drugs. There often isn't - other than
| letting the patient be in horrible pain forever. I'd argue
| that this is true for many kinds of clinical anxiety, too.
| basisword wrote:
| Good point, I shouldn't make assumptions. However I think
| that making these options so easy (via an app) will have a
| net negative effect on society.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I don't know that it would be so easy, tbh! Using this
| effectively would require that your friends be bought in,
| and would be willing to use the app. That in and of
| itself would likely require some difficult conversations.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| While I broadly agree, I would like to point out that there
| are plenty of people that successfully manage chronic pain
| with a static dose of painkillers, even opiates in many
| cases. A particular Slate Star Codex article comes to mind.
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-
| pseudo...
|
| That said, if you feel like you need figurative "pain meds"
| to navigate cancelling plans, that may be indicative of a
| larger issue, yes.
| basisword wrote:
| Yeah I guess I was thinking more of numbing mental pain
| with drugs as opposed to physical pain and the spiral that
| could lead to (taking more and more until you can no longer
| function). In the case of anxiety for example:
|
| 1. Avoid work socials. 2. Hybrid working. 3. WFH. 4. Camera
| off in meetings. 5. Skipping meetings entirely.
|
| Maybe not the best example but you've went from minor
| avoidance to help you keep your job and avoid your anxiety
| to major avoidance that will lead to you losing your job -
| and on top of that your anxiety will have increased to a
| level that recovering is much more difficult than if
| tackled earlier.
| slibhb wrote:
| > The other day some friends and I were reminiscing about an app
| idea we had years ago that would allow you to "blind cancel" on
| your friends. That is, flag if you were open to canceling a plan,
| which your friend would only see if they also flagged it.
| Basically, it was Tinder for bailing. This was our ultimate
| dream: an official, guilt-free conduit for the quiet hope that
| your friend wants to cancel, too.
|
| Extend the logic to tinder: is tinder just a mechanism to
| childishly avoid social discomfort (expressing romantic interest,
| risking rejection)?
| mikkergp wrote:
| I think tinder serves a second purpose which is the consent
| component. I think social mores around what is an acceptable
| romantic environment are changing. It used to be a given you
| might meet a partner at work. I think it's verging on
| inappropriate given changing gender roles in the work place,
| and that extends to other environments as well. You might
| assume a bar or club is an acceptable environment, but lots of
| people go to the club to dance and not meet someone.
| jsnodlin wrote:
| DantesKite wrote:
| Interestingly enough, alcohol serves that function too,
| especially at social gatherings.
|
| I can't tell you how many couples met because they drank a
| little alcohol to loosen things up.
| chestervonwinch wrote:
| I think there's some truth to that. On the other hand, it does
| allow you to connect with people that you would've likely never
| incidentally crossed paths IRL to express romantic interest in
| the first place.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| folks no longer want to take any social risk so we _all_ engage
| in maladaptive behavior
|
| this is leading to decay of society
| dymk wrote:
| Speak for yourself, I guess
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Reminds me a bit of the classic "Abilene Paradox," by Jerry
| Harvey: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-
| gulli...
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| That last paragraph is just a list of things I wish I could
| express to all the friends I had with serious anxiety issues in
| high school and college. Specifically this line:
|
| > I still have to remind myself all the time that it's not
| actually helpful to hypothesize about how other people feel, or
| base my decisions off a constellation of unspoken factors.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I don't know. Not wanting your friends to know you don't want to
| go somewhere in case you end up going isn't a bad thing, I think.
| but calling people babies, isn't very mature IMHO.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Consider that it's just an abstraction for "immaturity" and it
| seems to make more sense. They're not intending to shame
| someone - except perhaps themselves - for being a baby, they're
| just describing behavior (albeit, vaguely) as undesirable.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I understand that, and think that calling people "immature"
| is much the same.
|
| Why is not wanting to hurt peoples feelings (or being honest
| about your own) weaselling out, for example?
| flatline wrote:
| You are discussing a different polarity in communication:
| do you just care for your own feelings or for the other
| person's? That should be a factor in good communication!
|
| The article is discussing a different polarity: direct vs
| indirect communication. Direct communication is being
| honest and open about your feelings and those of others to
| the best of your ability. Some people only seem capable of
| indirect communication, where they say what they think the
| other person wants to hear and assume their own needs
| somehow come through, then are upset when the other person
| takes what they say at face value! And they assume the
| other person has some ulterior/hidden motive like
| themselves and try to read more into it than is really
| there.
| crmd wrote:
| Being uncomfortable communicating your feelings, especially
| with people you trust, is a recipe for social anxiety and
| dysfunction.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| but it has nothing to do with trust. You can trust
| someone to keep a secret, but not to be disappointed. an
| earlier post argued against assuming someone's feelings -
| in that case you can't be confident what the result of
| communicating your feeling are, unless you are confident
| b/c you don't care.
| crmd wrote:
| It's all about trust. You can't develop an intimate
| relationship with someone who hides their feelings. Being
| fake in a misguided attempt to avoid disappointing people
| is deeply unkind (and probably exhausting).
| recursive wrote:
| I don't think that there was ever an intent to hurt
| anyone's feelings in any of the stories.
|
| But further, do you consider it bad to call someone
| immature? Is that an intentional inconsistency? Do as I
| say, not as I do?
| mcphage wrote:
| > Why is not wanting to hurt peoples feelings (or being
| honest about your own) weaselling out
|
| Not wanting to hurt peoples feelings isn't weaseling out.
| What _is_ weaseling out is assuming what will hurt their
| feelings, and acting based on that assumption, because you
| don 't want to have a conversation with someone about their
| feelings.
| mooreds wrote:
| This was the tl;dr around that for me.
|
| > It only recently occurred to me that what we actually needed
| was to grow up--get to know ourselves, learn to communicate.
| Trying to weasel out of all that with an app is, well,
| basically the entire value prop of Silicon Valley, but more
| importantly antithetical to growth. Managing your social life
| requires self-knowledge: Will you be in the mood next week?
| Will they be mad if you cancel? Will you have fun tonight even
| though you're dragging your feet? The trick to answering these
| questions, I'm finding, is not technology or mind-reading or
| asking for surpluses of empathy. It's to stop being a huge
| baby.
|
| The 'baby' nomenclature, while definitely not polite, is a
| striking way to describe someone who isn't confident enough in
| their friendships or their self-understanding to bail on plans
| with honesty.
|
| Also, the title of the substack is "Maybe baby" so probably
| playing on that.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| It maybe striking, but also IMHO inaccurate. Friendships
| exist in many degrees, they can't all have perfect
| communication, or be journeys of self-discovery.
| thewebcount wrote:
| I have a tendency to some of these types of quirks, as well. I
| don't know the author's situation, but the reason why I ruminated
| over other people's thoughts for so long was because I was
| brought up in a household of narcissists and sociopaths. I had to
| step very carefully depending on what mood the people around me
| were in, lest I be smacked down (usually verbally, occasionally
| literally) for saying or doing something to set them off. It
| becomes exhausting and as you can imagine leads to numerous
| personal and social problems. They start so young that you never
| have a chance to realize that it's neurotic behavior.
|
| That said, I don't care for the label "baby". Different people
| have different skills - socially, intellectually, etc. - and not
| having a particular skill or set of tools doesn't make you a
| "baby". It makes you ignorant of those things. I think the label
| of being avoidant was much more precise language.
| ar_lan wrote:
| If you don't have a Boink-It, that's undeniable proof that you
| _are a baby_.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| also: don't make plans you don't intend to work to keep (esp. for
| the sake of being agreeable in the moment) - would much prefer
| someone doesn't make a plan they don't intend to work
| (emotionally or physically) to keep - learning to use yes and no
| responsibly is one of the more important aspects of maturing
| david927 wrote:
| One of the big moments of enlightenment I've had was the
| importance of emotionally detaching from the world.
|
| What does that mean? If you see your ex on the street,
| emotionally detached is not running away from her and not running
| toward her. If she says, "I'm going to Hawaii for vacation," it's
| not asking which island or deep details. It's saying, "That
| sounds nice." You care but you don't _really_ care. You 're
| emotionally detached.
|
| Doing this for the whole world sounds easy but it's one of the
| hardest things you can possibly do. Imagine if a million people
| suddenly loved you. It's almost impossible not to feel elated.
| Now imagine if a million people suddenly hated you. It's almost
| equally impossible not to feel devastated. But you can do it; and
| if you do it, you can unlock true happiness, true freedom.
|
| It's like this article says, but I don't see it about being an
| adult -- it's about being truly free.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >If she says, "I'm going to Hawaii for vacation," it's not
| asking which island or deep details. It's saying, "That sounds
| nice." You care but you don't really care. You're emotionally
| detached.
|
| That's not really "emotional detachment", though. It's not very
| different from actually running away the moment you see her,
| it's just less obviously cowardly. If you were really
| emotionally detached you would ask for as much detail as you
| could and it wouldn't affect you in the least.
|
| Incidentally, not asking any follow-up questions to such an
| announcement is an obvious sign of disinterest. It's just a
| more polite "I don't care in the least about this thing you're
| telling me and I don't want to hear any more about it".
| Everyone knows you're doing it because that's exactly what
| _they_ say when they don 't want to hear about some topic.
| david927 wrote:
| It was just an example. Hopefully you can imagine your own,
| better example.
| fluoridation wrote:
| It's the only example, and you gave it in lieu of a
| definition. Do you mean the same thing I mean by "emotional
| detachment", or do you mean something different?
| david927 wrote:
| I think you got it; I think the term is clear. It's not
| having any additional emotional response beyond what you
| find in an interaction with an acquaintance you see a few
| times a year. There's no additional emotion.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Doing this for the whole world sounds easy but it's one of
| the hardest things you can possibly do. Imagine if a million
| people suddenly loved you. It's almost impossible not to feel
| elated. Now imagine if a million people suddenly hated you.
| It's almost equally impossible not to feel devastated. But you
| can do it; and if you do it, you can unlock true happiness,
| true freedom.
|
| I don't understand the paragraph at all. Are you saying
| detachment is like being hated? If yes I have no idea why. If
| not why would it be so hard?
| david927 wrote:
| No, it's not "liking" being hated, it's that it doesn't
| deeply disturb you.
|
| Imagine you and a buddy have been arguing lately but you
| still go out hunting together. A bear appears out of nowhere
| and charges at your friend. You shoot and miss the bear but
| hit and kill your friend. There's not enough evidence to
| convict you of murder, so you walk free, but literally
| everyone around and whom you know thinks you murdered this
| person.
|
| The trick is to let that wash off of you. You know you were
| trying to save your friend; there's not much you can do to
| change that opinion. Just let it not affect you as much as
| possible.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > No, it's not "liking" being hated
|
| "like" not "liking" Is similar to.
|
| > The trick is to let that wash off of you. You know you
| were trying to save your friend; there's not much you can
| do to change that opinion. Just let it not affect you as
| much as possible.
|
| I thought you were saying to reject the feelings of the
| masses or something, but you're saying I shouldn't care
| about what the people close to me think either?
| david927 wrote:
| I'm saying, "[ignore] the feelings of the masses," --
| "divorce the world."
| munificent wrote:
| There is a tricky balancing act here. Detachment because you
| are at peace with yourself and untroubled by the vicissitudes
| of the world because they don't affect who you are is good.
| Detachment because you are avoiding negative feelings that you
| aren't able to handle and process in a mature way isn't.
|
| Distinguishing those two can be very difficult and in practice
| it's often a mixture.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Agree, it's a hard thing. Question I'd pose: is the detachment
| borne out of avoidance, or conserving emotional energy so you
| can deploy it where it is useful? There's a difference.
|
| I latched onto something like this for my digital self, and it
| mostly broke traditional social media for me. After all, what
| does it matter if people you probably won't meet approve of
| what you post? All that time and energy for what...a slightly
| higher number in a database somewhere? For all the "humans are
| social animals"-type platitudes that try to explain the
| necessity of social media, it always ended up being a huge net
| energy loss.
|
| But, my life is better when I am emotionally engaged in
| multiple spheres simultaneously: marriage, family, work,
| friends, hobbies. It's impossible for things to be going well
| in every sphere at once, so you spread out your emotional
| involvement among it all such that the inevitable dips are
| easier to deal with.
| rilezg wrote:
| I might be misunderstanding. Are you saying that the secret to
| true freedom/happiness is to feel no emotion and care about
| nothing?
|
| Is this just another way of saying, "accept the world as it is
| and as it happens and be content for it is kismet"?
| david927 wrote:
| No, you can care passionately about _more_ things if you don
| 't let the world influence you.
|
| The philosopher Rene Girard talks about it better than I ever
| could. Basically, when we reach a certain age, we start to
| want to fit in with the world. This is a natural and
| important process -- for a while. We'll often choose
| attributes of ourselves to extol and expand, in order to fit
| in with our selected strategy. We will imitate behaviors and
| attributes of those in that group. And during this time, we
| will find that subgroup that we're integrating with will want
| certain things -- and we will in turn want those things. He
| says we subconsciously start to desire what others desire
| because we imitate their desires. He calls it "Mimetic
| Desire."
|
| The problem is that as a bunch of us are all desiring the
| same things, we become rivals, reaching for the same objects.
| Worse, we may not ever really want what we're reaching for.
|
| I'm saying, "Divorce the world" -- an amicable, emotionless
| divorce. Just as you moved into a group, move out. Just as
| you imitated, stop. And that will free you to find your true
| passions, your true desires, your true opinions, your true
| self. And what's shocking is that now attaining things you
| desire will often be a million times easier because everyone
| isn't hunting these same things alongside you.
| rilezg wrote:
| Thanks, that makes more sense. The whole 'true passions,
| true desires, true opinions, true self' is a bit wishy-
| washy for me, but I appreciate the idea of thinking twice
| about whether you actually want something, or if you are
| just blindly wanting what the world has told you to want
| (especially in this age of ubiquitous advertising and mass
| media).
| achou wrote:
| This is a useful analysis of what "being an adult" means. I've
| noticed that the moment when I feel like avoiding social
| discomfort or potential conflict as the precise moment when I
| have a choice: either be an adult and understand what I want and
| communicate it, or avoid it and dislike myself and project those
| feelings onto others.
|
| Invariably when I choose to behave like an adult I feel empowered
| and ultimately at peace with myself and others in the end. If I
| choose avoidance, resentment builds, and further avoidance
| follows.
|
| The idea that avoidance behaviors can be selfish or agreeable
| cuts through much self-deception. This can be helpful when I tell
| myself "I'm just being nice" because it adds the proviso: "yeah,
| but I'm not being an adult." Which I could see being a really
| helpful inner monologue in those situations.
|
| This is also intimately connected to the concept of "taking
| responsibility", which begins with not avoiding something which
| "someone else" might deal with so you don't have to.
| jsnodlin wrote:
| bumby wrote:
| Everything you said is true, but just to add a little nuance, I
| think it's possible that avoidance can still be the correct
| choice when confrontation is unhelpful. Confrontation for the
| sake of confrontation is another form of indulging yourself to
| avoid certain emotions, like feeling weak or disempowered.
| Managing that in the height of emotion takes some real meta-
| cognition.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Very true and well said.
|
| Ask yourself these two questions:
|
| 1. What do I hope to gain from this interaction?
|
| 2. Given #1, what course of action is most likely to achieve
| your desired result?
|
| Confrontation is almost never the best answer for #2.
| robomc wrote:
| Taken too far, the "what do I hope to gain" thing can be
| kind of life-shrinking (because it's not always clear what
| you'll gain from interactions up front, and that lack of
| clarity tracks with the quality of what you'll gain too, in
| some situations) BUT it's definitely a higher-order
| consideration that way too few people employ.
| achou wrote:
| Keep in mind that "avoidance" in this context refers to not
| confronting one's own feelings and intuition. After grappling
| with that feeling explicitly, avoiding overt conflict can
| certainly be an adult decision to make.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Our feelings are vast and bottomless. It is impossible to
| confront all of them, and for the same reason its
| undesirable. Avoiding your feelings can be useful too.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Confronting does not mean naming and categorizing
| everything. It is to introspect, and sometimes the only
| takeaway is "here be dragons", and flagging that
| particular terra incognita for exploration later.
| ketzo wrote:
| Maybe it's just personal experience, but I vehemently and
| totally disagree with this.
|
| There has never been a time in my life where I was better
| off because I ignored my feelings. Literally never.
|
| There are times that we should avoid _acting on_ some of
| our feelings. But to do that well, and without further
| self-harm, requires that you know what they are, and what
| those feelings are influencing you to do.
|
| It is absolutely not impossible to confront all of your
| feelings. Difficult, yes. Exhausting, yes. Impossible?
| Absolutely not. And I really think it's doing yourself a
| disservice to ever believe that you have depths that you
| yourself are incapable of facing.
| bumby wrote:
| I think maybe the point of disagreement may be due to
| "ignoring" vs. "succumbing" to one's feelings.
|
| I think it's almost always useful to acknowledge
| emotions, but it doesn't mean you have to reactively give
| in to them. It's sometimes better to view them as a car
| on a railroad track that will soon be out of sight than
| to hop on that car and see where it takes you.
| dorkwood wrote:
| I can think of a time when I was better off because I
| ignored my feelings.
|
| I've struggled with anxiety a lot throughout my life,
| especially in the lead up to something like a public
| speaking engagement. For a time, I always tried to reason
| through it. Why was I feeling anxious? Was it feelings of
| inadequacy? Perfectionism? Not wanting to disappoint my
| peers? Any attempt to interrogate those feelings and
| confront them usually had the opposite effect: I'd feel
| even more anxious.
|
| On one particular occasion I was scheduled to present to
| a client at a new job, and the feelings of anxiety
| started bubbling again. But, this time, I'd had enough.
| None of my past strategies had ever worked, so I decided
| I wasn't going to do them. I thought, if my brain is
| going to flood my body with stress hormones, then it can
| go right ahead. If I was anxious, then I'd deliver the
| presentation anxious. I sat in the lobby and allowed the
| feelings to envelope me. To my surprise, the anxiety
| began to lift.
|
| What I eventually realized is that my anxiety in those
| situations was caused by a fight or flight response. My
| body was trying to spur me to action, and by pausing to
| think about those anxious feelings -- where they were
| coming from, how I might address them, etc. -- I wasn't
| doing anything to address the response itself. When I
| instead choose to ignore the feeling and do the action
| regardless, it sends a signal to my brain: I've chosen to
| fight. The stress response is no longer necessary, and
| the feeling goes away.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I don't think the person you're responding to is
| suggesting a deep meditation on the unlimited
| ramifications of one's feelings at every moment. They are
| talking about avoidance coping, which is pretty well-
| documented
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_coping). The
| admonition is to avoid that, more often than not. It's
| not the same as excessive navel gazing.
| [deleted]
| gotaquestion wrote:
| There's a difference between being "assertive" and
| "aggressive". I've had this discussion in the past on HN and
| it seems people want to treat both as the same, not saying
| that you are. Aggression is rarely, if ever, useful, both
| directed at someone or coming from someone.
| macrolocal wrote:
| Assertive avoidance is often the correct response to
| aggression (cf. Miyagi-Do).
| neuroma wrote:
| Really enjoyed reading this.
|
| Makes me wonder though about how we inevitably generalise
| people's personal stories into rules of thumb. I'm acutely aware
| how one person's journey for an antidote to their personality
| dysfunctions isn't always medicine for another person.
|
| If Hayley has dominantly anxious-avoidant attachment style it'd
| explain her ambivalence. The antidote is engage executive
| regulation (to supress the anxiety and flight response), and
| downplay emotional resonance.
|
| Common a formula as it is, could be a muddle for you or I if we
| don't have her underlying predispositions.
|
| What does it say about me that I wrote this.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Makes me wonder though about how we inevitably generalise
| people's personal stories into rules of thumb
|
| Applying rules of thumb takes a heck of a lot less mental
| effort than tossing everything into a mental bucket of "other
| people's experience" and then drawing on specific aspects as
| relevant to the situation.
| irrational wrote:
| > What does it say about me that I wrote this.
|
| That you read a lot of self help books?
|
| I have zero idea what "The antidote is engage executive
| regulation (to supress the anxiety and flight response), and
| downplay emotional resonance." even means.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them
| of their own agency.
|
| You may not even be wrong, but people have a right to choose how
| they feel about something, how something affects them, and the
| only way to know is to talk to them about it.
|
| Attributing to someone a feeling or thought they themselves did
| not actually have is among the worst things you can reasonably do
| to someone on a daily basis without interacting with them at all.
|
| I worry people don't quite realize how harmful this behavior is,
| or how often people do it.
|
| The solution, as always, is to communicate. Just speak, using
| words, to the person you're inventing thoughts and feelings for.
| Often you've successfully detected something (we are social
| creatures, after all), but rarely are you right on the specifics.
| baryphonic wrote:
| I agree, with the caveat that it doesn't work with people
| acting in bad faith (e.g. liars, manipulators, narcissists). In
| those cases, communication often makes situations worse. Of
| course bad faith should never be assumed, but once it has been
| demonstrated, it's hard to forget--if someone was willing to
| lie once to get what he wanted, how do I know he'd be unwilling
| to lie again?
|
| For the vast majority of people, though, communication is
| better.
| mooreds wrote:
| > When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing
| them of their own agency.
|
| Yes! I've done that too often, tiptoeing around things trying
| to game out all the possible ramifications. It's far better to
| simply try to:
|
| * know your needs/desires
|
| * communicate them
|
| * ask about theirs
|
| * handle the consequences
|
| Even though it is straightforward, it may not be easy.
| jdmichal wrote:
| This is pretty close to the basic tenets of Nonviolent
| Communication:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Overv.
| ..
| nvusuvu wrote:
| This book has and continues to change the way I communicate
| with others. Its sitting on my desk now. Empathy and
| Honesty, what a beautiful dance.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| And I'd add - trust them to handle the consequences of your
| communication as well.
|
| If it turns out they're cool about it, what wonderful
| feedback for you about their reliability and understanding of
| you.
|
| If it turns out they react badly, at least it's feedback to
| ask yourself whether they're worth that kind of trouble in
| the future.
|
| If they're passive aggressive about it - well, shame on them,
| and be very careful.
| 0des wrote:
| I've encountered this before when preemptively using they/them
| for someone, that it was robbing them of their choice. I do my
| best to use a name or point until a pronoun is defined to avoid
| uncomfortable moments.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| This isn't the same thing: A person using they/them - when
| they do not know the other person's pronoun - is someone
| trying to be nice and not _misgender_ someone. In other
| words, using neutral language unless confirmation of gender.
| Pointing isn 't polite in all company and repeatedly using a
| name isn't natural speech.
|
| It isn't taking someone's choice. All someone has to do is
| speak up.
|
| Additionally: I use they/them when I'm speaking about friends
| that are _not_ mutual friends. Usually, gender doesn 't
| enhance the story. Same when talking about my spouse in
| situations where I'm talking about myself being bisexual.
| People do not need to know what sort of genitals my spouse
| has, especially when it is because they want to see "how
| queer I am".
| zestyping wrote:
| It's tricky. Not everybody _wants_ be called they/them. Not
| everybody wants to be called he or she either.
|
| The way I try to work around this is to use "they" only
| when it would not sound grammatically unusual or confusing
| to do so, and otherwise rearrange the sentence to omit the
| pronoun.
|
| As an example of the first, "That's their phone on the
| table" sounds natural because singular "their" is a lot
| more common than singular "they", and it's unambiguous
| because a phone is typically owned by an individual.
|
| As an example of the second, "I met Bill yesterday and they
| went to the store with me" is odd because it sounds like
| "they" either doesn't agree with singular "Bill" or refers
| to some earlier plural antecedent, so I'd rephrase it "I
| met Bill yesterday and we went to the store together" or
| something like that.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Maybe English should go the Finnish route and abandon
| gendered pronouns entirely.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > I worry people don't quite realize how harmful this behavior
| is
|
| trying to predict how people feel without talking to them is
| baked into thousands of years of evolution, not just for
| humans, and a large amount of human communication is implied or
| non-verbal as well. It's hard to think it's that harmful given
| we've coevolved with it.
|
| BTW, would you only take this approach with close
| friends/partners, or bosses/coworkers too?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| We're not on the savanna hunting antelope anymore, so knowing
| that you're feeling, "scared of being eaten by the lion
| behind me" is no longer granular enough to be useful.
| em-bee wrote:
| it's harmful because it when it is wrong, then it can cause a
| lot of damage to the relationship. what we think others are
| feeling is always based on our own feelings. the reason it
| works, because most of the time, their feelings don't
| actually matter.
|
| when bumping into a stranger, assume best intentions,
| apologize or say something else appropriate and move on. who
| cares what they actually think or feel.
|
| the closer the person is, the more communication is
| warranted.
| IceMetalPunk wrote:
| There are _plenty_ of things we evolved to do
| /believe/think/perceive that are now harmful, because the
| world has changed and we haven't yet genetically evolved to
| fully adapt to it yet (and, because of medical technology, we
| may never do so). There are hundreds of cognitive biases that
| exist because they were an evolutionary benefit, but no
| longer are, or are no longer enough.
|
| Predicting how people feel is empathy, and that's great! But
| stopping there and assuming your predictions are correct
| without actually verifying them with the person first? That's
| harmful. You're not too busy anymore running from lions and
| hunting deer to stop and talk to a person before forming your
| ideas about them.
| jerry1979 wrote:
| What does it look like to presume a feeling for someone else?
| The reason I ask is because I have a hard time connecting how
| thinking something can rob someone.
|
| Also, when it comes to talking about things that happen in the
| mind, wouldn't hyperbolic assertions like "When you do X,
| you're actually robbing X" actually rob people of their own
| agency if the listener trusts the speaker as a legitimate
| authority?
| em-bee wrote:
| the problem is when your presumed feeling leads to a
| different and possibly wrong decision.
| zestyping wrote:
| This one is unfortunately quite common:
|
| "You look unhappy. You must be expecting me to do something,
| and now [ I'm frustrated because I don't know what you want
| from me | I'm anxious about meeting the possible expectations
| I imagine you might have ]."
|
| If someone looks unhappy, it might not be because of you.
| Even if they do have a need that you could meet, they might
| not expect you to meet it. Instead of guessing, you could
| simply gently ask.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| "Oh, they're not interested in going to this event, they
| probably think it's stupid."
|
| "He's always talked about working more with his hands, I
| probably shouldn't forward him this desk job that'd otherwise
| be perfect for his career progression."
|
| "She'd never date a loser like me."
| fluoridation wrote:
| It seems like you're confusing "robbing" and "not giving
| opportunities".
| TameAntelope wrote:
| "not giving opportunities for the expression of agency"
| doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same...
| jerry1979 wrote:
| I agree that robbing someone of their agency sounds very
| important; however, if I make assumptions about how
| someone feels, that could rob them of a potential
| opportunity, or it could also give them a new opportunity
| depending on the nature of my assumption.
|
| Either way, their capacity to act (agency) remains
| intact.
|
| The very important phrasing, in my estimation, can lead
| people to neurotically question their feelings less they
| "rob" someone of the capacity to act. In reality, a more
| lax quip such as "assuming makes an ass out of u-&-me"
| gives people more breathing room for their lapses in
| judgement.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| In this context, "robbing" fits just fine. Merriam-
| Webster lists this as a definition of "rob":
|
| to deprive of something due, expected, or desired
|
| So to say you're "robbing someone of their agency" is the
| same as saying you're "depriving them of an opportunity
| to decide for themselves"
| fluoridation wrote:
| I think we've gotten too hung up on a specific word, but
| if you really want to bring the dictionary into this, are
| you saying you owe it to other people to give them as
| many possibilities to decide for themselves? I would have
| to disagree with that assertion.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Think about it in reverse. Suppose your boss is thinking
| of increasing your responsibilities along with a
| significant pay bump, but they think about it and make
| the assumption that you like your current role and
| wouldn't like any new responsibilities. Wouldn't you
| rather make that decision yourself?
|
| Or suppose you're single and there's an attractive
| acquaintance who is thinking of asking you on a date, but
| they overhear you talking to a friend about a date you
| had, and so they assume you wouldn't be interested. You
| don't want to make that decision yourself?
| fluoridation wrote:
| Yes, I would like to make those decisions. No, I don't
| think I'm owed the right to make them. To say otherwise
| would be silly; if we all honored such a right we'd be
| forever trapped navigating an interminable labyrinth of
| negotiation and consensus-reaching.
| em-bee wrote:
| reaching consensus and building unity is a good way to
| strengthen a community, organization or team, so no i
| don't think we'd be trapped. on the contrary, everyone
| would feel empowered.
|
| most of our problems today are coming from the fact that
| people are disempowered and lack the agency to improve
| the situation.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I misspoke. I should have said "consensus-seeking". The
| state of having reached consensus is good, yes.
| Perpetually seeking consensus is not.
| em-bee wrote:
| you need to seek consensus, in order to reach it, so i
| disagree. of course, if you can't find consensus after
| sufficient negotiation then that is a problem, but it
| depends on the nature of the relationship and the nature
| of the point in question, how much of a problem it is.
|
| failure to reach consensus could threaten your
| relationship.
|
| if my boss keeps making decisions for me then i'll
| eventually quit my job, because i am not willing to work
| like that. and if my partner does it then it will lead to
| a breakup and if it is something else, a judge might
| force a consensus on us.
| cowuser666 wrote:
| Seems like a fragile kind of agency if people trying to
| interpret you crushes it.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing
| them of their own agency.
|
| There are unfortunately heck of a lot of people out there who
| (going by their actions) don't see denying people agency as a
| bad thing except when it is brought up as a standalone topic.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Just an observation, n=1; when I moved to Los Angeles to go to
| school, I was shocked to find that people cancelled plans on me
| all the time. At first I took it personally, because that didn't
| happen in the more rural town I'm from. But then I realized: its
| part of the culture, and maybe its just an attribute of very
| dynamic urban social networks, where an exciting new opportunity
| might pop up any moment. So I learned to not get my hopes up, and
| learned to cancel on others too without worrying about it over
| much.
|
| When I moved back to rural California, people thought I'd become
| a jerk. Took me a while to shift back.
| gernb wrote:
| Grew up in LA. Never had people flake. My guess is via random
| variation, some people get unlucky, have a few people flake,
| and assume it's the cultural norm. You can insert "people from
| ____ are flaky" and find complaints about pretty much anywhere.
|
| Common experience for me, rural stores closing 15 to 30mins
| early (so from my pov as a customer, flaky, by not being where
| they said they'd be)
| mdoms wrote:
| This must be a cultural thing because it's the rudest thing I
| could imagine! Agreeing to a plan is a commitment. The other
| people involved (who have also committed) rely on you doing
| your best to honour your commitment - who knows how their plans
| would have been different had you not committed in advance.
| nlh wrote:
| I'll affirm and agree with the sibling comments here: I know
| lots of people who live in / spent time in LA and they report
| the same thing -- that lots of people there are just flakey on
| plans.
|
| I don't think the fact that lots of people do it makes it OK in
| any way whatsoever. If the culture is to be rude and flakey,
| you don't have to conform to that, and you don't have to accept
| that from others. I'm friends with some people in LA and we all
| know that flaking on plans is a no-no regardless of what city
| we're in / from.
| mhb wrote:
| _part of the culture_
|
| Nah. They're assholes.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| If its understood that this is the norm, then expectations
| adjust to match. Maybe you start overbooking your social
| calendar as well.
| mhb wrote:
| And then you're surprised when you can't buy a TV without
| built-in ads that sends back telemetry about what you
| watch.
| postingposts wrote:
| robertlagrant wrote:
| One good lesson I've learned is to prioritise making plans with
| the right people.
|
| In this case the right people are those who don't think "plan"
| and "current best option" are synonyms.
| erdos4d wrote:
| Also n=1, but a buddy of mine from the east coast lived in LA
| for 7 years, told me the people there were the most selfish and
| fake bunch he had ever met. He said he never made a real friend
| in the entire time he was there, and that was a major reason he
| moved back east. I think you just ran into a bunch of assholes.
| allturtles wrote:
| IMO cancelling plans on people because 'something better came
| up' is rude and selfish. I just stop being friends with people
| like that.
|
| e.g. I had someone cancel plans made weeks ahead to meet up
| with me and my family at the last minute because they got
| invited to go skiing (this is in an area near many ski resorts,
| it was not a once in a lifetime opportunity). I just lost
| interest in meeting up with that person again.
|
| I similarly dislike dealing with people who "keep their options
| open" by refusing to commit to plans until the last minute
| (e.g. RSVP-ing to a birthday party invite the night before).
| adewinter wrote:
| I generally agree with your sentiment but do also think there
| is value in some degree of flexibility and recognizing some
| plans have more significance than other.
|
| E.g. if the friend bailed on a coffee break instead of a
| weeks-in-advance-vacation-plan it would be much less of a big
| deal (maybe not even worth nuking the friendship over?).
| Either way, situations like that do call for evaluating how
| important that person is in your life and (down)ranking them
| accordingly. Everyone has some fair-weather friends.
| anarticle wrote:
| There's flexibility and then there are repeat offenders. In
| a more detailed look, last minute cancel is the worst.
|
| I have moved the fair weather friends to group invites, and
| they either come or don't. They torpedo so many plans, it's
| not worth making the changes anymore.
| simoneau wrote:
| Barry Sobel made hay of this aspect of LA culture back in 1992:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLf3EaDEf68 I'm amazed this has
| been bouncing around in my head for 30 years, and equally
| amazed I could instantly pull this up with a Google search.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Wow! Thanks for pointing that clip out. So, not just me. (:
| mtalantikite wrote:
| As a New Yorker, I find the social culture out in LA to be
| super flaky and pretty annoying. People are non-committal, or
| cancel, or complain that you're staying in an inconvenient
| neighborhood for them to see you in. I blame it partially on
| the physical landscape of the place, just a bunch of suburbs
| smashed together trying to pretend to be a single city.
|
| In NYC people might show up late, but generally I find New
| Yorkers to be good at keeping plans and the city lends itself
| to spontaneity. In LA if the restaurant in the strip mall you
| tried to go to is full, it means driving to another strip mall
| and interrupting the flow of the night. In the city you can
| just walk down the block and change your plans on the fly. In
| LA I've had friends cancel plans to later find out they got an
| invite to some famous person's house. In New York, you'll
| likely end up getting invited along because who cares if you
| were in a movie.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| As a relatively new New Yorker (I've been here for five
| years) I agree with your assessment. New Yorkers commit to
| engagements and follow through, in my experience. I've had
| new acquaintances here follow through at a higher rate than
| old friends back in California. It is one of the things I
| like most about the city.
| asdff wrote:
| If you think LA is just strip malls you've never been to LA.
| Plenty of walkable areas.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| For sure, each suburb has it's own sort of "downtown" area
| in LA. But just because you can sort of walk around some
| parts of LA doesn't make it a place where spontaneity can
| thrive. As soon as you throw necessitating a car into the
| mix you lose that.
| bsder wrote:
| > People are non-committal, or cancel, or complain that
| you're staying in an inconvenient neighborhood for them to
| see you in. I blame it partially on the physical landscape of
| the place, just a bunch of suburbs smashed together trying to
| pretend to be a single city.
|
| 1) No, it's just LA flakiness. It's all about being _seen_
| dontcha know.
|
| My weird story about this. I was at a Little Barrie concert.
| Of course, there is a band before and a band after. We're
| there up front listening to the first band--Auditorium
| (Spencer Berger, his brother, and someone else) who were
| really good. There's the two of us at a bar table like 4 feet
| from the band, and something like 4 other people. 6 people
| total. We talk to the band (awesome dudes) afterward.
|
| And, then, suddenly, it's like a hipster sea flows in. Skinny
| corduroy jeans everywhere. Snaps and flashes everywhere. I
| had words with the corduroy boys who thought they were going
| to be annoying as fuck in front of us. Uh, no, we understand
| that you're going to get a little riled up but you're _NOT_
| going to have your phone flash in my face the entire concert
| (I love the fact that Johnny Marr (separate concert) will
| call these douchebags out in the middle of a concert and
| _chuck them out_ if they don 't stop.). That can fuck right
| off--fortunately, I'm huge and make a very nice wall so they
| can get a nice picture of my back or they can move.
|
| Little Barrie takes the stage about 5 minutes later--awesome
| _super_ high energy show. And, then, suddenly, the hipster
| sea flows out.
|
| And there's 6 people in the bar again for the band afterward.
| We felt so sorry for them. It's one thing to be the opening
| band and not have people but its another thing to be the
| closing band and _watch everybody leave_ before you even hit
| the stage.
|
| That's LA.
|
| 2) However, part of it is LA traffic. Your median appearance
| time is -20 minutes. Your variance is +15 to -Infinity.
|
| If there is an accident between me and you that's going to
| make me 2 hours late, I'm not coming. I'll text you and tell
| you why, but I'm not coming unless you are a _very_ close
| friend.
| schrectacular wrote:
| It feels to me like your initial intuition was right - they are
| being jerks/babies and they aren't respecting the decisions
| their past selves have made.
|
| I went through a phase of tongue-in-cheek "quantum planning",
| wherin I would give my friends a percentage on any plan I was
| invited to. So if I was asked to dinner I might just say "60%".
| Needless to say this didn't go down very well with people.
|
| There is a value to your word, and yes, it is more prevalent in
| closer-knit communities than in bigger cities, but I think
| that's because the cost of ditching a "friend" in a big city is
| much lower - after all there a plenty more potential friends to
| be had. But in my opinion someone who habitually breaks plans
| is giving a clear indication that they don't value their word
| and don't value the person they break plans with.
| nlh wrote:
| BTW I kinda love your quantum planning approach. It's honest
| and accurate! If you're 50/50 on going to something, be
| transparent and tell others that. If they don't like it,
| that's on them, not you.
| alar44 wrote:
| But that's not how planning works. I want to know how many
| people to expect. I want to know if you're coming or not so
| I can plan accordingly. If someone just said 50/50 without
| any kind of reasoning or explanation, I'd say OK forget
| about it then.
| Spinnaker_ wrote:
| It's terrible behaviour. Flip it around:
|
| "Hey, would you like to come to a dinner party at my house
| on Saturday. There's a 50/50 chance that I'll turn you away
| at the door."
|
| Don't make your indecisiveness other people's burden.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Might be something to do with LA (and possibly other large
| urban/metro areas) but possibly something more to do with
| 'school'. Even at a university level, people are still kids
| or young adults, don't have many connections, don't really
| understand the impact of their actions, reputation, etc. ) I
| saw this sort of "yeah/maybe/cancel" behaviour amongst some
| portion of peers back in my university days, but even then,
| it wasn't everyone, or even most people in my circles. It was
| known poor behaviour then. We tolerated things a bit more
| because... no mobile phones, no email, etc. If you weren't
| there, you weren't there, but often didn't have a good way to
| let someone know you had to cancel ahead of time (but you'd
| check your answering machine timestamp to verify!).
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| You might be right about that. I left LA after graduating.
| madrox wrote:
| This was true of my life in SF as well post college. I
| suspect it's universal of life for young single people in
| cities.
|
| Looking back, if I had to diagnose it, I'd say it had to do
| with a compulsion to stay busy coupled with overcommitting
| to the point of social burnout. Kinda like how children get
| cranky when they don't get their nap but don't believe
| they're tired until they fall over.
| Dragonai wrote:
| > I went through a phase of tongue-in-cheek "quantum
| planning", wherin I would give my friends a percentage on any
| plan I was invited to. So if I was asked to dinner I might
| just say "60%". Needless to say this didn't go down very well
| with people.
|
| This is hilarious. I do think it's generally a good idea to
| communicate hesitation or any degree of unwillingness, I'm
| just laughing at how you convey it with this approach.
| deckard1 wrote:
| > Los Angeles [...] people cancelled plans on me all the time
|
| Traffic. It's because of traffic and sprawl.
|
| LA is massive[1]. If you lived in Manhattan and made plans with
| people living in Queens or Brooklyn or East Rutherford, you
| would expect them to flake just as much as people living in LA.
| If I only make plans with people in Santa Monica and I live in
| Santa Monica, they will probably show up.
|
| The reality is that in LA you do not have subways that go
| everywhere. You also do not walk. So you interact with people
| that mostly got to that location via freeway and probably live
| at least 30 minutes away. Plans sound nice and people like to
| be agreeable, so they will say "sure, I might make it." And
| usually you do not get a strong yes. It's always a maybe.
| Because when the event rolls around, you're stuck deciding
| whether you feel like getting into the car and driving a good
| hour in heavy traffic or not. It's not because people are
| dicks, like everyone is claiming. It's because the city wears
| on you. Distance is measured in time, not miles in LA.
|
| Also, parking. If you live in WeHo, KTown, DTLA, or Santa
| Monica and you're asking people to find parking, be prepared
| for lots of canceled plans. No one likes circling the streets
| for 20 minutes to find parking.
|
| [1] https://www.welikela.com/how-big-is-los-angeles/
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Is this like you cancel 30min before, or days in advance?
| Either way it would be annoying but the former moreso.
| librish wrote:
| The post frames being avoidant as always being about not hurting
| someone else's feelings and I think that's almost never the case.
|
| It's usually juggling:
|
| - As a rule I usually end up happy I went to things in hindsight,
| even if I don't want to in the moment
|
| - Empirically, canceling even once on someone significantly
| reduced the odds of plans being remade
|
| - I want to see myself as the type of person who doesn't cancel
| plans
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the point is to own your preference either way. Don't
| lie to yourself or lie to them. This reduces cognitive
| dissonance and anxiety.
|
| If you go, don't drag your feet and tell yourself it is for
| them. If you cancel, don't lie and make up excuses.
| pristineshatter wrote:
| I was taught at a young age to always do what you first agreed to
| even if a better opportunity comes up. It has a few exceptions
| but as a heuristic I think everyone would benefit from using it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-04 23:00 UTC)