4 ms·

> 1: Here's an example with details changed: "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." Reality, Joe was in the passenger seat, and the driver h

> 1: Here's an example with details changed: "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." Reality, Joe was in the passenger seat, and the driver hit a deer that jumped out in front of them. On confrontation: "I never said Joe drove drunk!" Continued: "It was Joe's birthday he got a bit tipsy. He was feeling a bit full of himself and hit on my girlfriend all night. Afterwards I still decide to drive him home so he didn't die. I mean, what kind of friend would let his friend drive himself home after drinking on his birthday? And even then he continued to be a complete ass. I was so enraged that I didn't even see the deer jump out in front of my car" Hence: "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash" could very well be a valid interpretation of the evening if you consider all possible context. Especially if you are trying not to throw Joe under the bus as a sleazy friend to your therapist. But also, it could definitely be the drivers fault in this hypothetical scenario. Hard to say. The problem here is that humans have a tendency to believe they have all the information they need to pass correct judgment (source: life experience, and if I'm wrong about this, that means I'm probably right, right?). Usually, they don't. In my experience, everyone embroiders details to make themselves look innocent, and often without even noticing. It's very difficult to parse truth from people's tendency to simplify and exaggerate based on personal bias. If there is a conflict there usually is a good reason - but sometimes that "good reason" is based on a misinterpretation that others won't understand. I can't place fault on Joe or the driver in this situation because: I wasn't there and I don't know all of the context.

tptacek 5y ago
The comment you're responding to starts by saying these aren't the actual details; they're trying to illustrate a pattern of abusive arguments that provide misleading narratives, and, when contradicted by evidence, proceed to lawyer out from under the deception. That's obviously a real phenomenon; the example is just meant as an illustration of it. I'm not sure what the point of litigating it is.
- kempbellt 5y ago
  - tptacek 5y ago
    If that comment had just used the abstract pattern: "(1) Abuser provides an overtly misleading narrative; (2) Abuser is confronted with evidence that contradicts the thrust of their narrative; (3) Abuser retreats to litigating the clear meaning of their original narrative", would you still see a point in trying to provide counterfactuals? The comment is simply trying to illustrate a pattern common to unproductive and/or abusive arguments; they not really offering you a law school hypo to work through.
    - kempbellt 5y ago
      1) Why is a therapist qualifying a narrative as misleading, or not? Is this productive therapy? 2) Why would a therapist confront a patient like this? Is the point of good therapy to say, "Ahah! You contradicted yourself. My diagnosis that you are eBPD is correct!" 3) Seems like the patient being qualified as an abuser and confronted by a person who's role is to help them, in this manner, would naturally retreat to a defensive posture. So no, I don't see the point in trying to provide counterfactuals. Doesn't feel like productive therapy. A good therapist is there to listen, without judgement. Just my 2 cents tho. Obviously, feel free to disagree.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        I see a misunderstanding here. The therapist is not qualifying the narrative as misleading or not and the therapist is not confronting the person. From my example it's either Joe, or the person they told this two who felt like they were lied to.
      - GavinMcG 5y ago
        > Why would a therapist confront a patient like this? Well one reason would be that self-contradiction is part of the behavior the patient is seeking to change, and making the patient aware of their behavior can help them recognize it. "Confront" in a therapeutic context doesn't mean "gotcha!" It just means asking the patient to recognize something.

tptacek 5y ago

The comment you're responding to starts by saying these aren't the actual details; they're trying to illustrate a pattern of abusive arguments that provide misleading narratives, and, when contradicted by evidence, proceed to lawyer out from under the deception. That's obviously a real phenomenon; the example is just meant as an illustration of it. I'm not sure what the point of litigating it is.

kempbellt 5y ago
- tptacek 5y ago
  If that comment had just used the abstract pattern: "(1) Abuser provides an overtly misleading narrative; (2) Abuser is confronted with evidence that contradicts the thrust of their narrative; (3) Abuser retreats to litigating the clear meaning of their original narrative", would you still see a point in trying to provide counterfactuals? The comment is simply trying to illustrate a pattern common to unproductive and/or abusive arguments; they not really offering you a law school hypo to work through.
  - kempbellt 5y ago
    1) Why is a therapist qualifying a narrative as misleading, or not? Is this productive therapy? 2) Why would a therapist confront a patient like this? Is the point of good therapy to say, "Ahah! You contradicted yourself. My diagnosis that you are eBPD is correct!" 3) Seems like the patient being qualified as an abuser and confronted by a person who's role is to help them, in this manner, would naturally retreat to a defensive posture. So no, I don't see the point in trying to provide counterfactuals. Doesn't feel like productive therapy. A good therapist is there to listen, without judgement. Just my 2 cents tho. Obviously, feel free to disagree.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      I see a misunderstanding here. The therapist is not qualifying the narrative as misleading or not and the therapist is not confronting the person. From my example it's either Joe, or the person they told this two who felt like they were lied to.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      > Why would a therapist confront a patient like this? Well one reason would be that self-contradiction is part of the behavior the patient is seeking to change, and making the patient aware of their behavior can help them recognize it. "Confront" in a therapeutic context doesn't mean "gotcha!" It just means asking the patient to recognize something.