John_Spickes comments on Open thread, August 26 - September 1, 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: philh 26 August 2013 09:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (148)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: diegocaleiro 28 August 2013 11:20:41AM *  8 points [-]

What are the reasons to go to family meetings, and meet the subset of family members who happen to be (1) Stupid (2) Religious (3) Non-rationalists (4) Absolutely clueless about reality (5) Pushy about inserting their ideas/ideals/weltenshaaung/motifs into you?

Of the top of my mind: [1] Avoid losing inheritance money [2] Avoid losing reputation with related family members who are not so silly [3] Avoid losing reputation with other people who may give you inheritance money [4] It is an investment in the far future, if you break a leg, or something, family members are more likely to take you to a hospital

These 4 reasons do not seem sufficient to me. Personally I don't think (a) You owe them, for their past good deeds towards you (b) Sharing genes is an important property or (c) One should love one's relatives.... have any truth in them. So do you have any extra arguments besides the 4 above that may be more convincing? Or should I abdicate the meetings alltogether?

Comment author: shminux 28 August 2013 05:51:14PM *  7 points [-]

It's a hard decision, I feel for you.

Having observed several people in a similar situation, I saw them go through the reasoning you describe. If you discard the virtue-ethics non-consequentialist reasons, like "One should love one's relatives" (regardless of how bad they are), or "You owe them, for their past good deeds " (despite all the poisonous and mean stuff they inflicted on you), you are left with enumerating options and calculating utilities.

At least one person I know had decided that the emotional damage of maintaining contact outweighs any potential financial benefits and severed her connections with one part of the family entirely, instead relying on her friends for socializing and emotional support. When her parents passed away some years later, they left their millions to some church charity and nothing to her, but that was already factored in her decision and so was not a big upset.

Another managed to learn to detach himself emotionally from whatever is going on at the meetings, by treating his family as low-level NPCs who simply follow their faulty programming and are no more worthy of being upset at than a wordprocessor program with a bug in it. I think nurses go through this kind of training.

If you are not sure that you can implement the second option (and you clearly have trouble ignoring at least one overly critical LW regular, who is not even your relative), then maybe finding some convenient excuses to avoid family gatherings is a better approach.

Oh, another approach I have seen was to build an alliance/support network out of the less bigoted part of the family. YMMV.

There is also a number of decent self-help books on the subject, like Toxic Parents.

Good luck!

Comment author: John_Spickes 28 August 2013 08:11:42PM 2 points [-]

Another managed to learn to detach himself emotionally from whatever is going on at the meetings, by treating his family as low-level NPCs . . .

Do you know where I might find information about implementing this technique? It sounds really useful. Did your friend follow some methodology for accomplishing this?

Comment author: Lumifer 28 August 2013 08:30:10PM 4 points [-]

Keep in mind that the definition of a sociopath is more or less "one who treats other people as low-level NPCs".

Comment author: John_Spickes 28 August 2013 08:44:12PM 3 points [-]

Point well taken! However, this still seems like a potentially useful skill to have when you must interact with someone but wish to defend yourself emotionally.

Comment author: patrickmclaren 29 August 2013 04:07:15PM *  2 points [-]

Indeed, and people would do well to remember that there may be situations wherein you are in fact the relatively "low-level NPC".

Comment author: shminux 29 August 2013 04:56:09PM *  -1 points [-]

Also known as "the mark". The good news is that you are rarely aware of being one.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 August 2013 08:47:50PM 2 points [-]

I am not sure this is good news from the standpoint of consequences...

Comment author: shminux 29 August 2013 04:54:38PM 2 points [-]

I don't know of any sources he used. This is one of those hard self-modifications that require highly developed emotional intelligence and introspection skills.

I know that when I tried to do something like that (not getting annoyed at a person for constantly bringing up the same settled point over and over for years), I failed. Basically, the feeling of annoyance flares up before I have a chance to consciously deconstruct it. I managed to quell it quicker, but not prevent it from happening. I tried preparing myself for the situation in advance, but that only made it worse, as I would get annoyed and upset during the simulation, as well. Actually alieving that a person close to you is basically a moist robot is hard.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 15 September 2013 08:22:50AM 0 points [-]

Might it help to think of the person as running on habit about a particular subject or in response to a particular stimulus rather than them being pseudo-conscious in general?