12 ms·

The Forgiver's Dilemma: Can Letting Go Set You Free?

39 points by gamebit07 3y ago

karmakaze 3y ago
I sense a false dichotomy/dilemma approaching: > The Dilemma: David has two choices
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Yes. This article did not persue other options. Like: "Don't forgive, but let go". Don't forgive, but let go of the smoldering grudge. More like "Trust but Verify"
bradley13 3y ago
Forgiving someone makes sense, if you believe they honestly made a mistake, or if they are willing to change their future behavior. Forgiving does not make sense, if it just gives a narcissist another shot at you. "Fool me once..." We have neighbors like that. We wanted to believe the best of them, and let them get away with crap 2 or 3 times. You don't have to be mad at people like that, you just have to realize that their nature is not going to change.
- SamBam 3y ago
  Forgiveness doesn't have to imply returning to the same level of trust. You can forgive your child for having lost your phone, and yet choose to wait until they're older before lending them the phone again. Forgiveness is more about your own internal state. Are you still holding onto the pain of the betrayal? Most of the time, you're just continuing to let that thing harm you, if so. Forgiveness can also be about finally acknowledging that you can't change the past.
- ldd 3y ago
  From the article: Forgiveness means letting go of anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you. It doesn’t mean forgetting what happened or saying it was okay. You can always forgive and never trust, or trust less. Or even forgive and never speak to the person that you forgave. So exactly like you did with your neighbours. Sounds perfectly healthy to me.
  - czl 3y ago
    > Forgiveness means letting go of anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you. It doesn’t mean forgetting what happened or saying it was okay. Assuming that definition why would one ever not "forgive"? What this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings drive your decisions". There is a variant of this advice involving positive feelings such as "do not let the positive feelings you may have towards a charismatic sales person drive your purchase decisions / your positive feelings towards a charismatic politician drive your voting" or better still "do not let an intense infatuation cause the ruin your marriage (cheating) / ruin of your career (work place relationship) / ruin of your life (unwanted pregnancy / child)"... Again what this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings (both good or bad) drive your decisions".
- trustissues123 3y ago
  It's probably a matter of definition, but I think it's useful to distinguish forgiving and (re)trusting. IMO this is the most important distinction on this topic, whatever definition you give. The difference between: - to forgive (that is, letting go of negative feelings, accepting what happened), and to - to trust (that what happened would not happen again). You definitely don't need the other person (or their actions) for the former. But you need evidence of some change for the latter. (Ideally you need the other person to acknowledge what and why it happened, and following actions to attest to the new behaviour) You can easily forgive a child that somehow misbehaved, without any work or interaction on their part, and have zero hard feelings. Which is different from trusting that the child's behaviour has changed. Mixing forgiving and trusting, as is done throughout the article, is not at all productive. You seemed to have forgiven them, but you don't trust them. How could you?
ganzuul 3y ago
Forgiveness engages the highest orders of intelligence in us. It is a highly non-linear dynamic which is hard to analyze.
travisgriggs 3y ago
To start with, I really enjoyed Veritaseum’s recent take on the “Prisoners Dillema” and Game Theory (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM). It seems appropriate to mention since it circles around this same “dillema” and even places a numerical value on the value of forgiving in game theory simulations. The historical part and layman’s reduction is good to. I think THIS article undersells the “Hold a Grudge” payoff: > David feels justified but might damage the relationship and stop Samantha from learning from her mistake. Most relationships have an ongoing bargaining element to them. Exchange of services, tit for tat, quid pro quo, pay each others backs, etc. Even when we pretend they don’t, or obscure them by wrapping higher level words around them. What makes forgiving hard, is that when we feel wronged, we feel it gives us a better bargaining position go forward. If we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power going forward. Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <fill in the blank wrong thing> too!” To clarify, I AM a big fan and proponent of forgiveness. I aspire to be better at. But I think this article has missed a key part of the dillema, by not better portraying the real allure of not forgiving.
- WhitneyLand 3y ago
  >>relationships have a bargaining element? Yes, generally understood to be true in psychology. >>if we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power I can’t argue your personal experience, but I don’t think this one is major theory or something generally accepted to be true about forgiveness. >>Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <wrong thing> too Because “whataboutism” is just a logical fallacy that people use as a common defensive tactic, but it’s not inherent to forgiveness.
  - catskul2 3y ago
    I've always thought describing "whataboutism" as a logical fallacy as misunderstanding the broader picture. I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change". If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first." There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.
superb-owl 3y ago
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." --Paraphrasing of the Dhammapada
alecco 3y ago
No mention of the dimension and consequences of what to forgive. Forgetting to take out the trash is not the same as sleeping with somebody else. > "Once a cheater, always a cheater." [...] Someone is three times more likely to cheat if they have cheated in the past. https://www.du.edu/news/once-cheater-always-cheater-du-study-examines-serial-infidelity https://www.du.edu/news/once-cheater-always-cheater-du-study...
- alecco 3y ago
  Also, OP is bland blogspam by some kind of new age anonymous blog.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  The article has quite a way of completely misunderstanding the term it defines right away. It's not about staying with the person and not expecting to be cheated again. Forgiveness is about whether you break up and stay angry for the rest of your life, or break up and stop caring about it. One of those is trivially and obviously counterproductive, with no upside at all.
  - alecco 3y ago
    > Forgive (Cooperate): David forgives Samantha, giving her another chance, and tries to rebuild trust. giving her another chance
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      He defines the word just bellow that. The definition doesn't include giving her another chance. The definition he gives is aligned with the common usage on the philosophical and religious contexts. The way he uses all around the article is aligned with the popular usage and has a completely different meaning. Nobody will ever go claiming forgiving people by the popular meaning is something you should always do. It's patently stupid.
AlanYx 3y ago
>While forgiveness offers mental health benefits like reduced stress and anxiety... It's not necessarily a direct causal relationship. Research shows that the reduced anxiety associated with forgiveness is more causally connected to intermediate factors such as managing anger and an optimistic/hopeful viewpoint rather than forgiveness per se. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120569/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120569/
derivative7 3y ago
It's David who has been wronged. It doesn't make any sense for the author to chastise him for having feelings about it. And it is not up to the author to prescribe what feelings are "correct" or which ones mean he "defected". Perhaps if David's forgiveness is so important to the author he should have thought of that before doing the wrong or at least make some effort to repair the damage he did.
Delumine 3y ago
I forgive, but I don't forget. One thing is to not let your emotions affect your health, but if someone has crossed a boundary that has made you weary of them... there's no reason to open yourself up to them again.
erokar 3y ago
I think it can set your free, but I don't think it's a necessity. I think it's totally possible to move on and process something without forgiving. There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive, as if that's the only option. That makes things more difficult for those who are not able to forgive. There is no right way to process a wrong.
- sshine 3y ago
  > There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive Currently, as in since Christianity became popular? I’m reminded of a song lyric by Die Antwoord: I hope my enemies live long, so they can see me prosper.
  - erokar 3y ago
    I was mainly thinking about pop psychology advice from the last ten years or so. But you have a good point.
keepamovin 3y ago
You can forgive but still have nothing to do with the person. Forgiveness doesn't have to mean you continue with them in any fashion at all. That's a separate choice. Some people stay together, or keep their relationship whatever it was, and don't forgive each other, over whatever. Others forgive, but move on, and no longer have anything to do with each other. Forgiveness and maintaining a relationship are independent things. They obviously affect and interact with each other, but they are independent of each other, nonetheless. :) Also, I tend to believe Jesus, as in: turn the other cheek. That's a super power, because it actually saves you from doing something stupid that will hurt you more than, or at least as much as, hurt them. Alternately, if you know that karma exists, then forgiveness takes on a different dimension. It's actually super badass. Because until you forgive and let go, the universe or karma, is waiting on you to dish out whatever you want to do, before it to takes its own vengeance -- giving you the right of first refusal, or whatever. Once you forgive and let go, you free up the floodgates of karma to find their rightful home. You're no longer in the way. The universe doesn't have to wait on you anymore giving you the right to first reply, because you've already let go. In effect, you've outsourced your 'revenge', so to speak. Until then the universe is waiting on you to make the first move, if you need to, so it probably won't do anything, so as to not interfere with your free will to take revenge if you want. But if you forgive, then you get someone else to (the universe, karma) do revenge for you, and you don't have to do anything, and nothing bad happens to you. It's the perfect badass move. Therefore, forgiveness is the ultimate revenge. But also, in another way, it's the ultimate revenge, because by forgiving you are saying, "Your capacity to affect me is so insignificant, you have no power, nothing. Your past actions have become nothing at all, as if they never existed, worthless." Forgiveness is the ultimate flex. Look what Jesus did on the cross. He pities his killers. Rightly so, but who pulls a flex like that? Jesus does. Pretty cool. And very enlightened. Not easy to do tho. But definitely worth it. :)
- ganzuul 3y ago
  He says “forgive them for they know not what they do”. It is a qualified forgiveness, he does not intend to take revenge on the ignorant.
  - deleted 3y ago
lfmunoz4 3y ago
I don't really understand forgiveness. Unfortunately many situations are you have 1 chance and if you mess up it there is absolutely no way to reverse the type of relationship that was created. For example if you are wronged as a child from parent. Yes later as an adult you can "forgive" (whatever that means) but then you are not a child anymore, so it is just not the same. You needed that parent as a child as an adult it is completely different. You aren't "holding" onto anything you can accept they did their best it just wasn't good enough and there just isn't any way to "reverse" that and change your childhood.
- iamthepieman 3y ago
  Forgiveness is part taking control and part letting go and part accepting reality. It's not about the other person. It also doesn't mean you don't make any changes in your thoughts or behavior or adjust to the reality of whatever it is that the person did to need forgiveness for. If you were mistreated as a child, you can forgive the person who did it. But you'd be irresponsible to then just send your own kids over to that person's house or let them be a primary caretaker of your children.
- TeaDrunk 3y ago
  Forgiveness isn't like acting like what a person did never happened. It's describing the cessation of the feeling of resentment and anger at being wronged. Depending on how small or large the action is, the wrongful action can be but is not always treated as if it never happened. I can cease being angry at my abusive parents but that doesn't mean I have to engage with them.
  - Modified3019 3y ago
    That's what you say is the definition of forgiveness, sure. But is that the definition of forgiveness that everyone else actually has? Clearly enough people have a definition of forgiveness meaning exactly "acting like what a person did never happened", that threads like this become split with people talking past each other.
    - 3y ago
1024core 3y ago
As someone said, "forgiveness is giving up all hope of a better past for some hope of a better future".... couldn't agree more.
settsu 3y ago
Can you not forgive someone and distance yourself from them? Did I miss where that is presented as a valid option?
sorokod 3y ago
"Forgiveness is a personal choice" This is the core of the matter, and even more: feeling "anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you" in the first place, is a personal choice too. To put it another way, the real question is not "Can Letting Go Set You Free?" but "Who exactly took away your freedom to start with?" The mock game theoretic prelude in the post is confused and obfuscates these simple facts.
cardanome 3y ago
It is fine to cut out people that betray your trust. You don't owe anyone to give them a second or third chance. If it is a minor thing and you think they can change and you are willing to keep trusting them, sure forgive them. Otherwise either change or cut your relationship to a new level of trust that expects them to do what they have done once. The only mistake is holding grudges while keeping the relationship. That is unhealthy. You shouldn't feel bad for cutting out people. And you don't have to forgive. You just have to accept what happened, act accordingly and maybe stop dwelling on it. Acceptance does not need to be forgiveness.
bennettnate5 3y ago
The introduction poses a bit of a false dilemma--there's a third, unmentioned choice: 3. Forgive the individual who has wronged you for their past actions, without continuing the relationship. Forgiving someone for a wrong action they've committed is too often conflated with restoring that person to an identical position of trust and closeness in your life. Forgiveness is about letting go of the past--it doesn't mean you also are obliged to recommit to a future. Choosing to put a person back in the same level of trust as that of a stranger is not holding a grudge. Choosing to end a relationship is not holding a grudge. It is simply a reversion to the mean--one that could lead to rebuilding a relationship of trust, or not.
- wccrawford 3y ago
  I went through this with an online friend. I understand why they were like they were, but I couldn't let them continue to be that way around me. Years later, we're talking again, and I think it'll be okay this time. It'll never be the same, but at least it's not nothing.
  - ganzuul 3y ago
    Did you set new parameters for the relationship, and they eventually accepted it?
    - wccrawford 3y ago
      No, but I told them what they did wrong and how I wouldn't stand for it. I also took away the avenue they used to wrong me (Facebook) when I split with them, and didn't reinstate it when we started talking again. We never really communicated via FB anyhow, so it didn't matter much.
cobri 3y ago
When I think of forgiveness, I think of Corrie Ten Boom forgiving her captor, a guard at the nazi concentration camp where her sister died. https://guideposts.org/positive-living/guideposts-classics-corrie-ten-boom-forgiveness/ https://guideposts.org/positive-living/guideposts-classics-c...
zer00eyz 3y ago
Forgiveness <> Letting go. The idea that these two things are so deeply tied feels very cultural (western? christian?). The parable of the two monks and the woman springs to mind as the best example of breaking the link between letting go and forgiving. If you dont know the parable see: https://www.alphahome.org/two-monks-and-a-woman/ https://www.alphahome.org/two-monks-and-a-woman/ Trying to map this issue onto the prisoners dilemma is reductive in a way that makes good content and bad advice. Walking away and letting go is a viable option, and depending on the circumstance might be better for the aggrieved party.
gosub100 3y ago
The problem I have with forgiveness is it is antithetical to creating a disincentive for the behavior or action being forgiven. What incentive does a maligned person have to change their behavior if they don't have any consequences?
- czl 3y ago
  In the definition being shared above forgiveness is just about letting go of of your intense negative feelings. By this limited definition it means changing how you feel about what happened. You stop carrying around hate and are able to act rationally and if continued punishment for the party that caused you harm is best then your punishment continues but the goal is to reform them not to fix your feelings since those you now control. By this limited definition of forgiveness it does not mean letting the involved party off the hook as one might if you are forgiving a loan. See my other comment about this above.
- ganzuul 3y ago
  You demarcate a boundary where your own wellbeing is more important than your control of the integrity of the other person. It defines the existence of a boundary of identity.
Buttons840 3y ago
Forgiveness has a double meaning, two separate but closely related concepts; those being: (1) Letting go of negative feelings, a "conscious choice to let go of anger and resentment". This meaning of the word happens internally and is separate from what happens externally. (2) Letting go of boundaries or consequences for those who have wronged you. This is the "not forgetting" part of "forgive but not forget". This meaning of the word happens externally. Some people don't consider it true forgiveness if you don't also let go of the consequences; that is, you must forgive and forget. I would say (1) is always good. Let go of hate for your own mental health. (2) is more situational, but it's worth talking about explicitly. It's worth determining what exactly "I forgive you" means by talking about how boundaries, trust, and consequences have changed.
- bjornsing 3y ago
  The word forgiveness can mean "enforcing boundaries or consequences on those who have wronged you"? To me that's kind of the opposite of forgiveness.
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Rather, letting go of consequences and boundaries. Missed a negative.
yowlingcat 3y ago
Terrible blog post which starts with a false dichotomy and a poor shoehorning of forgiveness into the prisoner's dilemma and works backwards from it. The reason that the prisoner's dilemma is an inappropriate analogy is because it lacks the interpersonal element of one prisoner having mistreated the other prisoner and therein placing strain on it. As I expected, the entire post misses this nuance and completely misses the mark on accurately describing any such situation involving forgiveness. To frame the only two choices as "forgive/hold a grudge" is hyperbolic and childlike. Realistically, it's "get closer/create space." That creates a spectrum of how much space or conversely intimacy each parties want to have with one another. Of course, the blog post misses that dynamic completely in its excitement to apply the prisoner's dilemma to a situation it is inappropriate for. I think a much better analogy for forgiveness is that trust is like a bank, or credit. It takes a long time to build up credit, but a very short time to destroy it. So it's not impossible to rebuild that trust, but it takes consistent long-term effort from the party that frayed that trust for it to be rebuilt. And from the point of view from the party who is being asked for forgiveness -- the only appropriate way for them to respond without creating an unhealthy situation is to expect the situations that broke that trust to be rectified long-term. Otherwise, it's their prerogative to create enough distance for there to be safety. What they choose to do with that distance (hold a grudge or not) is up to them, but holding a temporary grudge is a pretty common way to work through the grief process and pathologizing it seems unrealistic and condescending to me. Holding a permanent grudge seems unhealthy, but I don't think that surprises anyone.
Thoreandan 3y ago
Is this site AI generated?

39 points by gamebit07 3y ago

karmakaze 3y ago

I sense a false dichotomy/dilemma approaching: > The Dilemma: David has two choices

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Yes. This article did not persue other options. Like: "Don't forgive, but let go". Don't forgive, but let go of the smoldering grudge. More like "Trust but Verify"

bradley13 3y ago

Forgiving someone makes sense, if you believe they honestly made a mistake, or if they are willing to change their future behavior. Forgiving does not make sense, if it just gives a narcissist another shot at you. "Fool me once..." We have neighbors like that. We wanted to believe the best of them, and let them get away with crap 2 or 3 times. You don't have to be mad at people like that, you just have to realize that their nature is not going to change.

SamBam 3y ago
Forgiveness doesn't have to imply returning to the same level of trust. You can forgive your child for having lost your phone, and yet choose to wait until they're older before lending them the phone again. Forgiveness is more about your own internal state. Are you still holding onto the pain of the betrayal? Most of the time, you're just continuing to let that thing harm you, if so. Forgiveness can also be about finally acknowledging that you can't change the past.
ldd 3y ago
From the article: Forgiveness means letting go of anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you. It doesn’t mean forgetting what happened or saying it was okay. You can always forgive and never trust, or trust less. Or even forgive and never speak to the person that you forgave. So exactly like you did with your neighbours. Sounds perfectly healthy to me.
- czl 3y ago
  > Forgiveness means letting go of anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you. It doesn’t mean forgetting what happened or saying it was okay. Assuming that definition why would one ever not "forgive"? What this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings drive your decisions". There is a variant of this advice involving positive feelings such as "do not let the positive feelings you may have towards a charismatic sales person drive your purchase decisions / your positive feelings towards a charismatic politician drive your voting" or better still "do not let an intense infatuation cause the ruin your marriage (cheating) / ruin of your career (work place relationship) / ruin of your life (unwanted pregnancy / child)"... Again what this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings (both good or bad) drive your decisions".
trustissues123 3y ago
It's probably a matter of definition, but I think it's useful to distinguish forgiving and (re)trusting. IMO this is the most important distinction on this topic, whatever definition you give. The difference between: - to forgive (that is, letting go of negative feelings, accepting what happened), and to - to trust (that what happened would not happen again). You definitely don't need the other person (or their actions) for the former. But you need evidence of some change for the latter. (Ideally you need the other person to acknowledge what and why it happened, and following actions to attest to the new behaviour) You can easily forgive a child that somehow misbehaved, without any work or interaction on their part, and have zero hard feelings. Which is different from trusting that the child's behaviour has changed. Mixing forgiving and trusting, as is done throughout the article, is not at all productive. You seemed to have forgiven them, but you don't trust them. How could you?

ganzuul 3y ago

Forgiveness engages the highest orders of intelligence in us. It is a highly non-linear dynamic which is hard to analyze.

travisgriggs 3y ago

To start with, I really enjoyed Veritaseum’s recent take on the “Prisoners Dillema” and Game Theory (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM). It seems appropriate to mention since it circles around this same “dillema” and even places a numerical value on the value of forgiving in game theory simulations. The historical part and layman’s reduction is good to. I think THIS article undersells the “Hold a Grudge” payoff: > David feels justified but might damage the relationship and stop Samantha from learning from her mistake. Most relationships have an ongoing bargaining element to them. Exchange of services, tit for tat, quid pro quo, pay each others backs, etc. Even when we pretend they don’t, or obscure them by wrapping higher level words around them. What makes forgiving hard, is that when we feel wronged, we feel it gives us a better bargaining position go forward. If we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power going forward. Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <fill in the blank wrong thing> too!” To clarify, I AM a big fan and proponent of forgiveness. I aspire to be better at. But I think this article has missed a key part of the dillema, by not better portraying the real allure of not forgiving.

WhitneyLand 3y ago
>>relationships have a bargaining element? Yes, generally understood to be true in psychology. >>if we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power I can’t argue your personal experience, but I don’t think this one is major theory or something generally accepted to be true about forgiveness. >>Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <wrong thing> too Because “whataboutism” is just a logical fallacy that people use as a common defensive tactic, but it’s not inherent to forgiveness.
- catskul2 3y ago
  I've always thought describing "whataboutism" as a logical fallacy as misunderstanding the broader picture. I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change". If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first." There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.

superb-owl 3y ago

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." --Paraphrasing of the Dhammapada

alecco 3y ago

No mention of the dimension and consequences of what to forgive. Forgetting to take out the trash is not the same as sleeping with somebody else. > "Once a cheater, always a cheater." [...] Someone is three times more likely to cheat if they have cheated in the past. https://www.du.edu/news/once-cheater-always-cheater-du-study-examines-serial-infidelity https://www.du.edu/news/once-cheater-always-cheater-du-study...

alecco 3y ago
Also, OP is bland blogspam by some kind of new age anonymous blog.
marcosdumay 3y ago
The article has quite a way of completely misunderstanding the term it defines right away. It's not about staying with the person and not expecting to be cheated again. Forgiveness is about whether you break up and stay angry for the rest of your life, or break up and stop caring about it. One of those is trivially and obviously counterproductive, with no upside at all.
- alecco 3y ago
  > Forgive (Cooperate): David forgives Samantha, giving her another chance, and tries to rebuild trust. giving her another chance
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    He defines the word just bellow that. The definition doesn't include giving her another chance. The definition he gives is aligned with the common usage on the philosophical and religious contexts. The way he uses all around the article is aligned with the popular usage and has a completely different meaning. Nobody will ever go claiming forgiving people by the popular meaning is something you should always do. It's patently stupid.

AlanYx 3y ago

>While forgiveness offers mental health benefits like reduced stress and anxiety... It's not necessarily a direct causal relationship. Research shows that the reduced anxiety associated with forgiveness is more causally connected to intermediate factors such as managing anger and an optimistic/hopeful viewpoint rather than forgiveness per se. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120569/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120569/

derivative7 3y ago

It's David who has been wronged. It doesn't make any sense for the author to chastise him for having feelings about it. And it is not up to the author to prescribe what feelings are "correct" or which ones mean he "defected". Perhaps if David's forgiveness is so important to the author he should have thought of that before doing the wrong or at least make some effort to repair the damage he did.

Delumine 3y ago

I forgive, but I don't forget. One thing is to not let your emotions affect your health, but if someone has crossed a boundary that has made you weary of them... there's no reason to open yourself up to them again.

erokar 3y ago

I think it can set your free, but I don't think it's a necessity. I think it's totally possible to move on and process something without forgiving. There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive, as if that's the only option. That makes things more difficult for those who are not able to forgive. There is no right way to process a wrong.

sshine 3y ago
> There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive Currently, as in since Christianity became popular? I’m reminded of a song lyric by Die Antwoord: I hope my enemies live long, so they can see me prosper.
- erokar 3y ago
  I was mainly thinking about pop psychology advice from the last ten years or so. But you have a good point.

keepamovin 3y ago

You can forgive but still have nothing to do with the person. Forgiveness doesn't have to mean you continue with them in any fashion at all. That's a separate choice. Some people stay together, or keep their relationship whatever it was, and don't forgive each other, over whatever. Others forgive, but move on, and no longer have anything to do with each other. Forgiveness and maintaining a relationship are independent things. They obviously affect and interact with each other, but they are independent of each other, nonetheless. :) Also, I tend to believe Jesus, as in: turn the other cheek. That's a super power, because it actually saves you from doing something stupid that will hurt you more than, or at least as much as, hurt them. Alternately, if you know that karma exists, then forgiveness takes on a different dimension. It's actually super badass. Because until you forgive and let go, the universe or karma, is waiting on you to dish out whatever you want to do, before it to takes its own vengeance -- giving you the right of first refusal, or whatever. Once you forgive and let go, you free up the floodgates of karma to find their rightful home. You're no longer in the way. The universe doesn't have to wait on you anymore giving you the right to first reply, because you've already let go. In effect, you've outsourced your 'revenge', so to speak. Until then the universe is waiting on you to make the first move, if you need to, so it probably won't do anything, so as to not interfere with your free will to take revenge if you want. But if you forgive, then you get someone else to (the universe, karma) do revenge for you, and you don't have to do anything, and nothing bad happens to you. It's the perfect badass move. Therefore, forgiveness is the ultimate revenge. But also, in another way, it's the ultimate revenge, because by forgiving you are saying, "Your capacity to affect me is so insignificant, you have no power, nothing. Your past actions have become nothing at all, as if they never existed, worthless." Forgiveness is the ultimate flex. Look what Jesus did on the cross. He pities his killers. Rightly so, but who pulls a flex like that? Jesus does. Pretty cool. And very enlightened. Not easy to do tho. But definitely worth it. :)

ganzuul 3y ago
He says “forgive them for they know not what they do”. It is a qualified forgiveness, he does not intend to take revenge on the ignorant.
- deleted 3y ago

lfmunoz4 3y ago

I don't really understand forgiveness. Unfortunately many situations are you have 1 chance and if you mess up it there is absolutely no way to reverse the type of relationship that was created. For example if you are wronged as a child from parent. Yes later as an adult you can "forgive" (whatever that means) but then you are not a child anymore, so it is just not the same. You needed that parent as a child as an adult it is completely different. You aren't "holding" onto anything you can accept they did their best it just wasn't good enough and there just isn't any way to "reverse" that and change your childhood.

iamthepieman 3y ago
Forgiveness is part taking control and part letting go and part accepting reality. It's not about the other person. It also doesn't mean you don't make any changes in your thoughts or behavior or adjust to the reality of whatever it is that the person did to need forgiveness for. If you were mistreated as a child, you can forgive the person who did it. But you'd be irresponsible to then just send your own kids over to that person's house or let them be a primary caretaker of your children.
TeaDrunk 3y ago
Forgiveness isn't like acting like what a person did never happened. It's describing the cessation of the feeling of resentment and anger at being wronged. Depending on how small or large the action is, the wrongful action can be but is not always treated as if it never happened. I can cease being angry at my abusive parents but that doesn't mean I have to engage with them.
- Modified3019 3y ago
  That's what you say is the definition of forgiveness, sure. But is that the definition of forgiveness that everyone else actually has? Clearly enough people have a definition of forgiveness meaning exactly "acting like what a person did never happened", that threads like this become split with people talking past each other.
  - 3y ago

1024core 3y ago

As someone said, "forgiveness is giving up all hope of a better past for some hope of a better future".... couldn't agree more.

settsu 3y ago

Can you not forgive someone and distance yourself from them? Did I miss where that is presented as a valid option?

sorokod 3y ago

"Forgiveness is a personal choice" This is the core of the matter, and even more: feeling "anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you" in the first place, is a personal choice too. To put it another way, the real question is not "Can Letting Go Set You Free?" but "Who exactly took away your freedom to start with?" The mock game theoretic prelude in the post is confused and obfuscates these simple facts.

cardanome 3y ago

It is fine to cut out people that betray your trust. You don't owe anyone to give them a second or third chance. If it is a minor thing and you think they can change and you are willing to keep trusting them, sure forgive them. Otherwise either change or cut your relationship to a new level of trust that expects them to do what they have done once. The only mistake is holding grudges while keeping the relationship. That is unhealthy. You shouldn't feel bad for cutting out people. And you don't have to forgive. You just have to accept what happened, act accordingly and maybe stop dwelling on it. Acceptance does not need to be forgiveness.

bennettnate5 3y ago

The introduction poses a bit of a false dilemma--there's a third, unmentioned choice: 3. Forgive the individual who has wronged you for their past actions, without continuing the relationship. Forgiving someone for a wrong action they've committed is too often conflated with restoring that person to an identical position of trust and closeness in your life. Forgiveness is about letting go of the past--it doesn't mean you also are obliged to recommit to a future. Choosing to put a person back in the same level of trust as that of a stranger is not holding a grudge. Choosing to end a relationship is not holding a grudge. It is simply a reversion to the mean--one that could lead to rebuilding a relationship of trust, or not.

wccrawford 3y ago
I went through this with an online friend. I understand why they were like they were, but I couldn't let them continue to be that way around me. Years later, we're talking again, and I think it'll be okay this time. It'll never be the same, but at least it's not nothing.
- ganzuul 3y ago
  Did you set new parameters for the relationship, and they eventually accepted it?
  - wccrawford 3y ago
    No, but I told them what they did wrong and how I wouldn't stand for it. I also took away the avenue they used to wrong me (Facebook) when I split with them, and didn't reinstate it when we started talking again. We never really communicated via FB anyhow, so it didn't matter much.

cobri 3y ago

When I think of forgiveness, I think of Corrie Ten Boom forgiving her captor, a guard at the nazi concentration camp where her sister died. https://guideposts.org/positive-living/guideposts-classics-corrie-ten-boom-forgiveness/ https://guideposts.org/positive-living/guideposts-classics-c...

zer00eyz 3y ago

Forgiveness <> Letting go. The idea that these two things are so deeply tied feels very cultural (western? christian?). The parable of the two monks and the woman springs to mind as the best example of breaking the link between letting go and forgiving. If you dont know the parable see: https://www.alphahome.org/two-monks-and-a-woman/ https://www.alphahome.org/two-monks-and-a-woman/ Trying to map this issue onto the prisoners dilemma is reductive in a way that makes good content and bad advice. Walking away and letting go is a viable option, and depending on the circumstance might be better for the aggrieved party.

gosub100 3y ago

The problem I have with forgiveness is it is antithetical to creating a disincentive for the behavior or action being forgiven. What incentive does a maligned person have to change their behavior if they don't have any consequences?

czl 3y ago
In the definition being shared above forgiveness is just about letting go of of your intense negative feelings. By this limited definition it means changing how you feel about what happened. You stop carrying around hate and are able to act rationally and if continued punishment for the party that caused you harm is best then your punishment continues but the goal is to reform them not to fix your feelings since those you now control. By this limited definition of forgiveness it does not mean letting the involved party off the hook as one might if you are forgiving a loan. See my other comment about this above.
ganzuul 3y ago
You demarcate a boundary where your own wellbeing is more important than your control of the integrity of the other person. It defines the existence of a boundary of identity.

Buttons840 3y ago

Forgiveness has a double meaning, two separate but closely related concepts; those being: (1) Letting go of negative feelings, a "conscious choice to let go of anger and resentment". This meaning of the word happens internally and is separate from what happens externally. (2) Letting go of boundaries or consequences for those who have wronged you. This is the "not forgetting" part of "forgive but not forget". This meaning of the word happens externally. Some people don't consider it true forgiveness if you don't also let go of the consequences; that is, you must forgive and forget. I would say (1) is always good. Let go of hate for your own mental health. (2) is more situational, but it's worth talking about explicitly. It's worth determining what exactly "I forgive you" means by talking about how boundaries, trust, and consequences have changed.

bjornsing 3y ago
The word forgiveness can mean "enforcing boundaries or consequences on those who have wronged you"? To me that's kind of the opposite of forgiveness.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Rather, letting go of consequences and boundaries. Missed a negative.

yowlingcat 3y ago

Terrible blog post which starts with a false dichotomy and a poor shoehorning of forgiveness into the prisoner's dilemma and works backwards from it. The reason that the prisoner's dilemma is an inappropriate analogy is because it lacks the interpersonal element of one prisoner having mistreated the other prisoner and therein placing strain on it. As I expected, the entire post misses this nuance and completely misses the mark on accurately describing any such situation involving forgiveness. To frame the only two choices as "forgive/hold a grudge" is hyperbolic and childlike. Realistically, it's "get closer/create space." That creates a spectrum of how much space or conversely intimacy each parties want to have with one another. Of course, the blog post misses that dynamic completely in its excitement to apply the prisoner's dilemma to a situation it is inappropriate for. I think a much better analogy for forgiveness is that trust is like a bank, or credit. It takes a long time to build up credit, but a very short time to destroy it. So it's not impossible to rebuild that trust, but it takes consistent long-term effort from the party that frayed that trust for it to be rebuilt. And from the point of view from the party who is being asked for forgiveness -- the only appropriate way for them to respond without creating an unhealthy situation is to expect the situations that broke that trust to be rectified long-term. Otherwise, it's their prerogative to create enough distance for there to be safety. What they choose to do with that distance (hold a grudge or not) is up to them, but holding a temporary grudge is a pretty common way to work through the grief process and pathologizing it seems unrealistic and condescending to me. Holding a permanent grudge seems unhealthy, but I don't think that surprises anyone.

Thoreandan 3y ago

Is this site AI generated?