4 ms·

The author appears young. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. It has been my experience that people who have lived a fortunate, trauma free life canno

The author appears young. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. It has been my experience that people who have lived a fortunate, trauma free life cannot really understand the trauma experienced by others. They might appear to understand, say all the right words, and so on. Then a few days later or weeks later be confused or upset because of how you react to something. A good friend once said to me, "Wow, that is still upsetting you?" He wasn't being a jerk, he was just surprised.

theonething 3y ago
> "Wow, that is still upsetting you?" If not a jerk, then grossly lacking in sensitivity, empathy and tact.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  At first I agreed with you, but then I remembered: Where is our sensitivity, empathy and tact for the person who said that, who may have their own trauma and own issues? The reality, the beauty of human relationships is that they are between people with all these issues and dimensions, all the nuance and detail that make up human beings. In the wild, there's no laboratory people - no clean, perfect specimens in simple environments. My rule is, I don't know what someone else has been through and is going through. Never, ever judge. If absolutely necessary (e.g., I need to decide to partner with them or not), make my best guess but don't judge.
  - bhattid 3y ago
    Well said. In addition to that, I think a speaker's intended meaning is also important to consider. imo, people often take what people say literally or default to a first-instinct interpretation, rather than trying to understand what the speaker is attempting to convey. I try to interpret what people say charitably (a few of my friends think much too charitably), but I really believe that the vast majority of people seldom intent any malice in their comments. In the example, it might have been intended in an empathetic way - "Damn, sorry, I didn't realize you were still hurting. I would have extended a shoulder to you if I realized". Or a pragmatic way - "I think the situation isn't as bad as you think, want to talk about it?" It could have been bluntly honest (personally, I typically appreciate honesty over politeness) or a totally aloof statement made on reflex. It could also just have been someone being a jerk, but I suppose the point of my rambling is that there's a myriad of ways to interpret a comment, and it's largely based on both the speaker's experiences and how they communicate.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Those are essential points. I'd just adjust the first to say, I think people tend to choose the interpretation - literal, metaphorical, reading emotions, etc etc - that suits their own emotional drive. I find that the person I'm talking to, if I treat them as if they are a*holes, act as if that was their intent the whole time. If I treat them as if they in good faith, they act that way. It's hard to resist the flow of conversation, to not go along with the way it's framed. I think that's why people act how you treat them; I think that's why people even confess falsely to crimes - the interrogator talks to the suspect as if they did it. Other sophsticated communicators also use that intentionally.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that I have to submit to an interview with people like this who are lacking empathy. It also wouldn't be great if these kinds of interviews proliferate. Empathy comes from being able to put yourself in other people's shoes. Reading fiction has been shown to increase empathy. If so then these guys need to do more reading.
- testfoobar 3y ago
  Yes - I agree - intrusive interviews are a terrible idea. My comment is an observation about how some people might arrive at such ideas.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
Not just trauma necessarily, but many of our defining moments include things like, leaving a religious community we grew up in, coming out as LGBTQ+, being too broke to pay bills and taking out a risky loan, experiencing racism/sexism/ageism. Not things I'd be inclined to talk about when those things are ripe for opening myself up to discrimination.

theonething 3y ago

> "Wow, that is still upsetting you?" If not a jerk, then grossly lacking in sensitivity, empathy and tact.

wolverine876 3y ago
At first I agreed with you, but then I remembered: Where is our sensitivity, empathy and tact for the person who said that, who may have their own trauma and own issues? The reality, the beauty of human relationships is that they are between people with all these issues and dimensions, all the nuance and detail that make up human beings. In the wild, there's no laboratory people - no clean, perfect specimens in simple environments. My rule is, I don't know what someone else has been through and is going through. Never, ever judge. If absolutely necessary (e.g., I need to decide to partner with them or not), make my best guess but don't judge.
- bhattid 3y ago
  Well said. In addition to that, I think a speaker's intended meaning is also important to consider. imo, people often take what people say literally or default to a first-instinct interpretation, rather than trying to understand what the speaker is attempting to convey. I try to interpret what people say charitably (a few of my friends think much too charitably), but I really believe that the vast majority of people seldom intent any malice in their comments. In the example, it might have been intended in an empathetic way - "Damn, sorry, I didn't realize you were still hurting. I would have extended a shoulder to you if I realized". Or a pragmatic way - "I think the situation isn't as bad as you think, want to talk about it?" It could have been bluntly honest (personally, I typically appreciate honesty over politeness) or a totally aloof statement made on reflex. It could also just have been someone being a jerk, but I suppose the point of my rambling is that there's a myriad of ways to interpret a comment, and it's largely based on both the speaker's experiences and how they communicate.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Those are essential points. I'd just adjust the first to say, I think people tend to choose the interpretation - literal, metaphorical, reading emotions, etc etc - that suits their own emotional drive. I find that the person I'm talking to, if I treat them as if they are a*holes, act as if that was their intent the whole time. If I treat them as if they in good faith, they act that way. It's hard to resist the flow of conversation, to not go along with the way it's framed. I think that's why people act how you treat them; I think that's why people even confess falsely to crimes - the interrogator talks to the suspect as if they did it. Other sophsticated communicators also use that intentionally.

UncleOxidant 3y ago

That may be true, but it doesn't mean that I have to submit to an interview with people like this who are lacking empathy. It also wouldn't be great if these kinds of interviews proliferate. Empathy comes from being able to put yourself in other people's shoes. Reading fiction has been shown to increase empathy. If so then these guys need to do more reading.

testfoobar 3y ago
Yes - I agree - intrusive interviews are a terrible idea. My comment is an observation about how some people might arrive at such ideas.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

Not just trauma necessarily, but many of our defining moments include things like, leaving a religious community we grew up in, coming out as LGBTQ+, being too broke to pay bills and taking out a risky loan, experiencing racism/sexism/ageism. Not things I'd be inclined to talk about when those things are ripe for opening myself up to discrimination.