= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
diegocaleiro comments on Open thread, August 26 - September 1, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
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?
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!
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?
Keep in mind that the definition of a sociopath is more or less "one who treats other people as low-level NPCs".
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.
Indeed, and people would do well to remember that there may be situations wherein you are in fact the relatively "low-level NPC".
Also known as "the mark". The good news is that you are rarely aware of being one.
I am not sure this is good news from the standpoint of consequences...
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.
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?
Over time, they can be reprogrammed to some extent, if you are not just straightforwardly responding to their actions or ignoring them. Raise your own status in their eyes and then teach them skills that enable more accurate control (i.e. more efficiently changing their minds as opposed to facing pointless arguing or deep wisdom). Finer control can be used for further skill development and for making them more useful or pleasant to be around (including developing their cynicism, so that they become capable of not responding negatively to things like this comment).
Ignoring them is actually an extremely powerful tool for reprogramming people, particularly when it comes to the kind of toxic emotional interaction habits that can be failure modes in family relationships. I'd go as far as to say it is one of the best.
They keep you well calibrated about the level of insanity in the society. They allow you to not only have a good model of the society, but to also feel it on a gut level.
Upvoted because it's true and relevant, but there are much, much cheaper ways to achieve that goal.
Facebook, for example.
Advice that you probably don't need to hear, but might be useful to someone in a similar situation:
If you do cut family ties, try to do so without hurting anyone or burning any bridges. The outside view says you're likely to reconcile in 5-10 years, and that's a lot easier if you drifted apart than if you had a big cathartic fight.
I'll just vanish slowly, no fight intended.
I don't think fighting is worth it most of the times it occurs, do people disagree?
Strong agreement.
In one's personal life, fighting is occasionally better than no action at all, but (effectively) never the best action.
meet potential allies who are by default more loyal to you than other people. if you can act nice to family they will like you way more than strangers will and a network of people you can rely on and who can rely on you is a useful and awesome thing to have. meeting the few members of your family that agree with you can also be positive and fun.
Don't forget to add status quo bias. Most people think its important to care about horrible family members, and not doing so because you obviously shouldn't just seems weird.
Deciding that you don't really care about continuing your relationship with those family members can be freeing because it means that you can do anything in their presence.
It can be fun when you talk with a religious person to just argue a more fundamentalist position then them for one meeting and see how they will deal with it.