4 ms·

I think the point of adding distance there is exactly that it saved the relationship. Some people just don't 'work' in close proximity to each other. And that c

I think the point of adding distance there is exactly that it saved the relationship. Some people just don't 'work' in close proximity to each other. And that can include family. I'd think the relationship will be less strained when they do not see each other every day because they live next to each other. At least one of them will feel bad. They may not show it, especially back in times when it would have been hard to get away, they may 'keep it all in' but they won't be happy. It seems like in your parent poster's case, not being together and having a close relationship allowed both sides to be happier. Potentially to the point where meeting each other for like 3 or 4 holidays per year was tolerable and they could work it out but where seeing each other every day would have been miserable for at least one side or potentially openly hostile for a very long time. It doesn't mean not having any relationships but just because you're family doesn't mean you have to be constantly present in each other's lives.

dozgon 4y ago
Thank you very much for your input. > It doesn't mean not having any relationships but just because you're family doesn't mean you have to be constantly present in each other's lives. You have a point, for sure. I can imagine being this the case for people who can socialize well. Say you have only 2 options between living in a dysfunctional family environment and living completely by yourself with no friends, what then? It appears that solitary confinement, damages your brain[1]. I wonder if that applies to social isolation as well. It seems to be the case in prisons that you need to be around rapists and murderers to keep your brain somewhat engaged. (If you don't have any other option.) So maybe it is wrong to equate solitary confinement as "loneliness". Solitary confinement is much more taxing, I imagine. However, I think it is better to be around people in a physical sense. (Even if that means living with some unpleasant circumstances.) Gabor Mate implies that modern society is sick, and therefore we get sick. But it is the only society we have, I suppose. So it might be better than nothing. I am not disagreeing with you at all here. I can see your point. Nevertheless, I just wanted to bring up the case where people have social difficulties and if the family stress is somewhat manageable, then maybe it is better to be around them. And also keep in mind that I have no clue if the prison context is applicable to "free individuals". 1. https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/298995580?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/2989955...
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  That's fair enough but you posited that distance relationships don't work out. I posited that distance may actually save the relationship and be better for both sides. Just because you are not close with your birth family does not mean you do not have friends or your own family. You can hate being with your brothers, sisters and parents and want to be as far away from them as you can and have a loving relationship with your spouse, two or three kids or your own, maybe you are actually on good terms with your in laws and like being around them better ;) But you still can tolerate x-mas, Easter and Thanksgiving with your birth family well enough.

dozgon 4y ago

Thank you very much for your input. > It doesn't mean not having any relationships but just because you're family doesn't mean you have to be constantly present in each other's lives. You have a point, for sure. I can imagine being this the case for people who can socialize well. Say you have only 2 options between living in a dysfunctional family environment and living completely by yourself with no friends, what then? It appears that solitary confinement, damages your brain[1]. I wonder if that applies to social isolation as well. It seems to be the case in prisons that you need to be around rapists and murderers to keep your brain somewhat engaged. (If you don't have any other option.) So maybe it is wrong to equate solitary confinement as "loneliness". Solitary confinement is much more taxing, I imagine. However, I think it is better to be around people in a physical sense. (Even if that means living with some unpleasant circumstances.) Gabor Mate implies that modern society is sick, and therefore we get sick. But it is the only society we have, I suppose. So it might be better than nothing. I am not disagreeing with you at all here. I can see your point. Nevertheless, I just wanted to bring up the case where people have social difficulties and if the family stress is somewhat manageable, then maybe it is better to be around them. And also keep in mind that I have no clue if the prison context is applicable to "free individuals". 1. https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/298995580?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/book/35060/chapter-abstract/2989955...

tharkun__ 4y ago
That's fair enough but you posited that distance relationships don't work out. I posited that distance may actually save the relationship and be better for both sides. Just because you are not close with your birth family does not mean you do not have friends or your own family. You can hate being with your brothers, sisters and parents and want to be as far away from them as you can and have a loving relationship with your spouse, two or three kids or your own, maybe you are actually on good terms with your in laws and like being around them better ;) But you still can tolerate x-mas, Easter and Thanksgiving with your birth family well enough.