5 ms·

How not to say the wrong thing (2013)

113 points by dredmorbius 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago
This essay introduces the "ring theory" of trauma. The ring is centred on the patient, with immediate caregivers, family, friends, and others, ultimately strangers on the Internet and Space Alien Cats, in the outermost rings. Dumping flows out, comfort flows in. It's the most succinct guideline for how to act around someone with a chronic or terminal condition I've found, and corresponds well to my own experience in multiple instances over the decades.
- parpfish 2y ago
  the problem with insensitive people isn't that they don't intuit the logic of this theory. it's that they insist that they are in a different ring that would justify their behavior.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Which is where the role of guardians / gatekeepers, which I mentioned in an earlier comment on this thread, comes in: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41177346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41177346> Those people politely but firmly and effectively remove such people to their appropriate ring.
dang 2y ago
Related: How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588709 - Aug 2022 (1 comment) How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18156384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18156384 - Oct 2018 (47 comments)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
n4r9 2y ago
Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to or whether they are in a more inner ring than you? Obviously we don't always have the mental space to do so, but it doesn't quite sit right with me to say "these people are allowed to moan as much as they want". It feels like an arbitrary social more.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  > Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to That would be ideal if everyone had unlimited emotional reserves. Often though, those who are closer to the center have fewer reserves left over. If they were supporting those closer and those farther out they would be exhausted and no longer to support those closer to the center.
- penteract 2y ago
  > It feels like an arbitrary social more. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary - the person in the center needs more support and probably has other things demanding their attention. Speaking from personal experience, it can be a relief to be free from worrying about some of the normal social rules (e.g. the knowledge that if you throw a tantrum, people will be understanding) even without taking advantage of that. That said, I don't completely agree with the article. The people in the surrounding circles were still people I cared about - when I was able to comfort them I was happy to do so. I don't remember anyone saying something like "I don't know if I can handle it" to me, but I was aware that news of my condition would affect people, and I would have been willing to interpret such comments as a sign that they cared about me.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    It makes total sense that the person at the centre deserves comfort and support. I didn't mean to imply that this aspect is anything other than fundamental to human psychology. I think your second paragraph speaks to what feels artificial about this "theory" better than I could express it. It's almost like it's "baked in" that you dump outwards. Like there's an expectation to dump outwards. This feels ignorant of the diversity of human character. Most people will probably want to dump out at some time or another. But a lot of people will want to feel like they're being spoken to freely and honestly, without regard to social expectation. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't practise sensitivity and consideration. The big problem I have with the phrase "I don't know if I can handle it" is not the fact that this person is expressing that feeling, but how they're expressing it. It's somewhat catastrophising and insensitive to the centre person's feelings. You can say effectively the same thing much more tactfully; for example: "I can only imagine how devastating this has been for you. It's been challenging for me too, because I really really want to support you but it's difficult to confront the situation and how badly it hurts you. I'm telling you this in part because I want you to know that if my support ever slips, it's not that I don't care, but rather that my own internal shit is making it hard to express that care properly. There have even been times where it felt overwhelming... but I hope that I can help you to feel my care for you even through those times." If my friend said this to me, even in my darkest moments, I think that I would really appreciate the combination of candour and consideration. Although obviously not everyone is me and everything has to be decided case by case.
cat_plus_plus 2y ago
This works well when you can take time away from the crisis. If you have a family member who is having crisis for many years, you will eventually have to talk to them about your own experiences or lose close connection that you used to have.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  That's a fair point, and probably argues more for being able to take time off. It's also worth noting that for most people outside the immediate circles (and from whom inward-dumping seems most prevalent and toxic) aren't utterly enmeshed in the constant struggle. Caregiving itself is extraordinarily trying and debilitating in that context. I'd like to see better understanding, support, and options there. Others' suggestions and experiences very much welcomed. Mayo Clinic on caregiver burnout: <https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregiver-burnout https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregive...> Another issue of chronic / long-term caregiving is that there are often frictions and conflicts which develop within families or other smaller groups, often pitting immediate caregivers (e.g., a spouse or adult children living with or near (an) elderly parent(s)), and more distant siblings or other relations. Add in issues of long-standing relationship conflicts, cognitive decline, or paranoia and misperceptions arising as co-morbidities of many many long-term conditions or just simple old age, and the mix becomes all the more problematic. Oftentimes this is further compounded by support organisations (governmental or otherwise) which often aren't, or which assume an adversarial stance for or against specific parties, often unfounded.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    That goes to a subtle and important point - although the advice in the article appears to be excellent in practice it is unfortunate that they led with the "This isn’t just about you." example. It is important to recall that, in a strategic sense, a crisis is not all about the person in crisis. An individual's crisis is can easily be a communal experience. Although it isn't a good time to start arguing with someone about that. I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
A lot of these ideas if taken literally would harm the person in the center. There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients. The history starts of course with Freud, but another prominent example was the theory of recovered memories in the late 1900s. In this case, the ring theory was developed out of hurt because the first author felt hurt by something a colleague said. That's not generally a good basis for a theory of how to deal with something as complicated as trauma. Even the basic idea of a "center" is suspect. In many cases, a traumatic event is an event that affects multiple people who must interact. The classic example of trauma is warfare. Families go through trauma. Even when there isn't a common trauma, many conversations happen between individuals who have separate but comparable traumas. You don't want to get into a frame of mind where you have to judge and compare people's trauma to determine what they can and can't say. On top of that there is a lot of research on kvetching and whether it's good for patients. In most cases I'm aware of, it's harmful to them. Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), advocate the opposite of what this article is advocating. CBT says that the patient does best when they talk back to their own distorted thoughts. That means not thinking of yourself as the center of some universe, and not thinking of yourself as a "why me" victim that is targeted by some cosmic force. This article is saying diametrically the opposite; it says you should reinforce people's distorted thoughts. Of course, you have to be kind and gentle to someone when they're having a hard time. But that kindness can take a lot of forms, and this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach.
- nine_k 2y ago
  This is fair. But I think that instead of debunking this approach, it just limits its applicability. (1) Keep the "kvetching order" for the (relatively) short time when the impact of the trauma is still very strong and hasn't been processed by the person in the center. (2) Do not allow two systems of kvetching rings clash. Yes, this includes both warfare, hopefully far from most people here, and, say, divorces. This is not a universal solution. Taken too literally, or too long-term, it will harm the person(s) in the center it's intended to protect. Yes, sometimes the only way out of pain is through, "no pain, no gain". But this is a good rule-of-thumb kind of solution that helps limit the pain inflicted to the people definitely more hurt than you, without any significant gain. Maybe a traumatized person, for their long-term benefit. needs to have a difficult conversation that would be extra painful due to the trauma. But there's no reason to inflict pain by small talk and trivial daily iissues.
AlbertCory 2y ago
I lost my dog recently. Nearly everyone knew enough to just say, "I'm so sorry," Your "therapy" ideas are over-intellectual BS. There is nothing you can possibly say that helps in the slightest.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  "I'm so sorry" followed by some hard listening and keeping my own damned mouth shut is a hard-learned lesson I've had. For someone you have strong rapport with, some level of humour or other commentary might be handy. And, after listening, and paying very close attention to cues, you might find that there are conversations to be had. They might have to do with the matter at hand, or they might be utterly unrelated but desperately needed diversion or distraction. Offers of assistance are also usually welcome, though I've seen in a few places that being specific about what you're going to offer is better. "Can I fix you a meal / do grocery shopping / mow the lawn / take care of the pets" is much more specific than "let me know if you need anything". The latter as an addition to the first may work. "Can I fix you a meal, or do anything else?", for example. Advice is the one thing that's almost uniformly toxic. It's an imposition, unless you're actually a trained professional you may well be far from helpful, and virtually all the most obvious / common (all senses of the word) suggestions have probably been made many, many, many times already. The end result is like telling an obese person that they're overweight. Odds are exceedingly good they're aware of the fact, and another person mentioning it serves no beneficial purpose. At worst, such advice turns into a twisted form of blame or imposition ("you wouldn't be in this state if you'd done ..."). That's hard to appreciate if you've not been in the other person's position, but seems quite common. And I'm sorry to hear about your dog, really.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    Right. "If I can do anything..." I'm not saying that's BAD to say, but it's pretty pro forma.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Clarifying my earlier point: offering to help in a way which only requires a yes/no answer is going to be cognitively easier for the recipient. They can of course provide a more elaborate response or make an alternate request, if they choose to do so and are capable of formulating such a response. But make the initial ask easy to answer. Another trap people fall into is in offering gifts or help for their own gratification. Baking a cake for someone who doesn't like eating cake (or has reasons not to eat cake) is not in fact doing them a benefit. And if the baker's response on learning of this is to rebuke them for rejecting your "gift" ... well, that just clarifies that their motivation was self-serving rather than other-serving in the first place. (Such responses, along with all sorts of other basically idiotic behaviour, is of course far too frequent. I'm hoping some reading this might recognise the patterns.)
kazinator 2y ago
> Remember, you can say whatever you want if you just wait until you’re talking to someone in a larger ring than yours. Yeah, ... no. Not whatever you want.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Important to keep in mind. You can vent and ask for things, but you can't start violating boundaries.
- loveangus 2y ago
  sharing privy information to outer rings will also negatively impact the inner rings, there's definitely a limit which the authors don't mention
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  "Whatever you want" means venting, negative thoughts, complaints, etc. Inner rings can complain out, and have no limits on those complaints. Outer rings cannot complain in. It's disappointing to see how many people fail to grasp this, even when stated simply and clearly.
  - kazinator 2y ago
    Learn the difference between "fail to grasp" and "disagree". No, maybe it's not a good idea to vent, in any direction. Also: your estimate of which ring you are on relative to the person you are talking to may be off.
kazinator 2y ago
I like how this is presented in a way that's easy to understand for engineers familiar with the i386 protection architecture.
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 2y ago
  Interesting, what it is exactly happen in i386?
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Protected mode: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode> Protected rings: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring> The latter pre-dates the i386 (Multics offered security rings in the 1960), but the i386 was the first popular, cheap, personal computer chip, and the first in the Intel line (8008, 8086, x86) line to offer a protected mode / ring-based hardware security model.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
I’m a bit disturbed by the way the article and most commenters here use the word trauma. Most of what’s discussed doesn’t seem to me to be "outside the normal range of human experiences". Am I completely out of the loop about how the word is used in the US now?
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  trauma: "an emotional wound or shock often having long-lasting effects" <https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=wn&Query=trauma https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=wn&Query=traum...> Etymology may also be informative: <https://www.etymonline.com/word/trauma https://www.etymonline.com/word/trauma> The description you give seems to come from Wikipedia's article, which at this writing follows that immediately with: "It must be understood by the affected person as directly threatening the affected person or their loved ones with death, severe bodily injury, or sexual violence." <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_trauma&oldid=1234675877 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_tra...> The situations being discussed in TFA and by numerous commenters (and certainly myself) do in fact involve direct threats of death or severe bodily injury to the affected person or their loved ones.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    Well, no, the usual definition of trauma involves being "outside the normal range of human experiences". Having cancer is extremely distressing but it is not trauma. Anyway, yours and the other answer I got confirm what I though. The word definition has indeed been widely broadened in the US.
    - kranke155 2y ago
      late 17th century: from Greek, literally ‘wound’ - a deeply distressing or disturbing experience. What's your definition.
      - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
TwoNineFive 2y ago
> Comfort IN, dump OUT. Kiss up, kick down. Got it.
fifticon 2y ago
I read it as a rule of thumb or explanation device. You can replace it with a broader and probably better principle about all two-party interactions: "Which one of us is more challenged right now?" If you are the less challenged party, you should probably be mindful of airing your grievances. And therein lies a complication: You might be dying of cancer but be a socially skilled person. And your visiting brother might be healthy as a spring baby, but as socially rude/unskilled as ever. Who is now the more challenged part - you might be dying of cancer, but you are still better equipped socially to wrangle your brother and the situation, than he is. I'm not saying we should tolerate that brother, but precisely his 'social cancer'/lack of ability to handle his (social) interactions leaves him with 'chronic social cancer' as well. This goes too for whenever you are helping someone with solving their problem - are you helping them in a sensible way, relatively to how they are challenged - often we end up fighting the 'victim' as we smother them with 'advice'. ("Well you only have this problem because you refuse to do what I told you to do earlier" yada yada).
- nness 2y ago
  I disagree — Cancer is something happens to you. Being socially inept is, barring medical conductions which complicate social interaction, entirely something within your control. "Chronic social cancer" does not exist. This kind of nitpicking is what the Kvetching Order avoids.
  - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
    For having worked 30 years to get out of the socially inept zone, and given plenty of people consume known carcinogens willingly, I think this statement is a bit simplistic at best. Smokers know they should stop smoking but it's hard to do so. Yet the path is clear. If you are socially blind by nature, the path is really not clear and you are going to suffer from your ignorance while painfully battling to get out of a hole you can't see but feels very much is trapping you.
  - aloisdg 2y ago
    > Being socially inept is entirely something within your control Ableism. What about neurodiversity? autism?
matthewfelgate 2y ago
Thanks for sharing because I found this very useful advice.
austin-cheney 2y ago
This is rather simple. If you are an empath you are already naturally aware of what the correct things to say are. It just comes naturally. Most people are not empaths. If you are a deliberate narcissist, like a sociopath, you are probably an asshole. It does not really matter because you won't care anyways. If you are supremely deficient in conscientiousness you have no desire to be a narcissist, but its just who you are. Whatever you say is going to be a gamble but that won't stop you from saying it anyways. So, again, for these people it really doesn't matter. For everybody else: If you don't know what to say then just keep your mouth shut. For some people this can be extremely hard, and they will fail, but at least they know what to do to fix this. Just keep your mouth shut. It is that simple. There are no tricks. Once you realize how to keep your mouth shut you will naturally get better at listening and knowing the correct things to say will eventually come more naturally, so just shut your mouth.
GTP 2y ago
"And don’t worry. You’ll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on that." How reassuring :D

113 points by dredmorbius 2y ago

This essay introduces the "ring theory" of trauma. The ring is centred on the patient, with immediate caregivers, family, friends, and others, ultimately strangers on the Internet and Space Alien Cats, in the outermost rings. Dumping flows out, comfort flows in. It's the most succinct guideline for how to act around someone with a chronic or terminal condition I've found, and corresponds well to my own experience in multiple instances over the decades.

parpfish 2y ago
the problem with insensitive people isn't that they don't intuit the logic of this theory. it's that they insist that they are in a different ring that would justify their behavior.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Which is where the role of guardians / gatekeepers, which I mentioned in an earlier comment on this thread, comes in: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41177346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41177346> Those people politely but firmly and effectively remove such people to their appropriate ring.

dang 2y ago

Related: How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588709 - Aug 2022 (1 comment) How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18156384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18156384 - Oct 2018 (47 comments)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

n4r9 2y ago

Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to or whether they are in a more inner ring than you? Obviously we don't always have the mental space to do so, but it doesn't quite sit right with me to say "these people are allowed to moan as much as they want". It feels like an arbitrary social more.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
> Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to That would be ideal if everyone had unlimited emotional reserves. Often though, those who are closer to the center have fewer reserves left over. If they were supporting those closer and those farther out they would be exhausted and no longer to support those closer to the center.
penteract 2y ago
> It feels like an arbitrary social more. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary - the person in the center needs more support and probably has other things demanding their attention. Speaking from personal experience, it can be a relief to be free from worrying about some of the normal social rules (e.g. the knowledge that if you throw a tantrum, people will be understanding) even without taking advantage of that. That said, I don't completely agree with the article. The people in the surrounding circles were still people I cared about - when I was able to comfort them I was happy to do so. I don't remember anyone saying something like "I don't know if I can handle it" to me, but I was aware that news of my condition would affect people, and I would have been willing to interpret such comments as a sign that they cared about me.
- n4r9 2y ago
  It makes total sense that the person at the centre deserves comfort and support. I didn't mean to imply that this aspect is anything other than fundamental to human psychology. I think your second paragraph speaks to what feels artificial about this "theory" better than I could express it. It's almost like it's "baked in" that you dump outwards. Like there's an expectation to dump outwards. This feels ignorant of the diversity of human character. Most people will probably want to dump out at some time or another. But a lot of people will want to feel like they're being spoken to freely and honestly, without regard to social expectation. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't practise sensitivity and consideration. The big problem I have with the phrase "I don't know if I can handle it" is not the fact that this person is expressing that feeling, but how they're expressing it. It's somewhat catastrophising and insensitive to the centre person's feelings. You can say effectively the same thing much more tactfully; for example: "I can only imagine how devastating this has been for you. It's been challenging for me too, because I really really want to support you but it's difficult to confront the situation and how badly it hurts you. I'm telling you this in part because I want you to know that if my support ever slips, it's not that I don't care, but rather that my own internal shit is making it hard to express that care properly. There have even been times where it felt overwhelming... but I hope that I can help you to feel my care for you even through those times." If my friend said this to me, even in my darkest moments, I think that I would really appreciate the combination of candour and consideration. Although obviously not everyone is me and everything has to be decided case by case.

cat_plus_plus 2y ago

This works well when you can take time away from the crisis. If you have a family member who is having crisis for many years, you will eventually have to talk to them about your own experiences or lose close connection that you used to have.

dredmorbius 2y ago
That's a fair point, and probably argues more for being able to take time off. It's also worth noting that for most people outside the immediate circles (and from whom inward-dumping seems most prevalent and toxic) aren't utterly enmeshed in the constant struggle. Caregiving itself is extraordinarily trying and debilitating in that context. I'd like to see better understanding, support, and options there. Others' suggestions and experiences very much welcomed. Mayo Clinic on caregiver burnout: <https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregiver-burnout https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregive...> Another issue of chronic / long-term caregiving is that there are often frictions and conflicts which develop within families or other smaller groups, often pitting immediate caregivers (e.g., a spouse or adult children living with or near (an) elderly parent(s)), and more distant siblings or other relations. Add in issues of long-standing relationship conflicts, cognitive decline, or paranoia and misperceptions arising as co-morbidities of many many long-term conditions or just simple old age, and the mix becomes all the more problematic. Oftentimes this is further compounded by support organisations (governmental or otherwise) which often aren't, or which assume an adversarial stance for or against specific parties, often unfounded.
- roenxi 2y ago
  That goes to a subtle and important point - although the advice in the article appears to be excellent in practice it is unfortunate that they led with the "This isn’t just about you." example. It is important to recall that, in a strategic sense, a crisis is not all about the person in crisis. An individual's crisis is can easily be a communal experience. Although it isn't a good time to start arguing with someone about that. I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

A lot of these ideas if taken literally would harm the person in the center. There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients. The history starts of course with Freud, but another prominent example was the theory of recovered memories in the late 1900s. In this case, the ring theory was developed out of hurt because the first author felt hurt by something a colleague said. That's not generally a good basis for a theory of how to deal with something as complicated as trauma. Even the basic idea of a "center" is suspect. In many cases, a traumatic event is an event that affects multiple people who must interact. The classic example of trauma is warfare. Families go through trauma. Even when there isn't a common trauma, many conversations happen between individuals who have separate but comparable traumas. You don't want to get into a frame of mind where you have to judge and compare people's trauma to determine what they can and can't say. On top of that there is a lot of research on kvetching and whether it's good for patients. In most cases I'm aware of, it's harmful to them. Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), advocate the opposite of what this article is advocating. CBT says that the patient does best when they talk back to their own distorted thoughts. That means not thinking of yourself as the center of some universe, and not thinking of yourself as a "why me" victim that is targeted by some cosmic force. This article is saying diametrically the opposite; it says you should reinforce people's distorted thoughts. Of course, you have to be kind and gentle to someone when they're having a hard time. But that kindness can take a lot of forms, and this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach.

nine_k 2y ago
This is fair. But I think that instead of debunking this approach, it just limits its applicability. (1) Keep the "kvetching order" for the (relatively) short time when the impact of the trauma is still very strong and hasn't been processed by the person in the center. (2) Do not allow two systems of kvetching rings clash. Yes, this includes both warfare, hopefully far from most people here, and, say, divorces. This is not a universal solution. Taken too literally, or too long-term, it will harm the person(s) in the center it's intended to protect. Yes, sometimes the only way out of pain is through, "no pain, no gain". But this is a good rule-of-thumb kind of solution that helps limit the pain inflicted to the people definitely more hurt than you, without any significant gain. Maybe a traumatized person, for their long-term benefit. needs to have a difficult conversation that would be extra painful due to the trauma. But there's no reason to inflict pain by small talk and trivial daily iissues.

AlbertCory 2y ago

I lost my dog recently. Nearly everyone knew enough to just say, "I'm so sorry," Your "therapy" ideas are over-intellectual BS. There is nothing you can possibly say that helps in the slightest.

dredmorbius 2y ago
"I'm so sorry" followed by some hard listening and keeping my own damned mouth shut is a hard-learned lesson I've had. For someone you have strong rapport with, some level of humour or other commentary might be handy. And, after listening, and paying very close attention to cues, you might find that there are conversations to be had. They might have to do with the matter at hand, or they might be utterly unrelated but desperately needed diversion or distraction. Offers of assistance are also usually welcome, though I've seen in a few places that being specific about what you're going to offer is better. "Can I fix you a meal / do grocery shopping / mow the lawn / take care of the pets" is much more specific than "let me know if you need anything". The latter as an addition to the first may work. "Can I fix you a meal, or do anything else?", for example. Advice is the one thing that's almost uniformly toxic. It's an imposition, unless you're actually a trained professional you may well be far from helpful, and virtually all the most obvious / common (all senses of the word) suggestions have probably been made many, many, many times already. The end result is like telling an obese person that they're overweight. Odds are exceedingly good they're aware of the fact, and another person mentioning it serves no beneficial purpose. At worst, such advice turns into a twisted form of blame or imposition ("you wouldn't be in this state if you'd done ..."). That's hard to appreciate if you've not been in the other person's position, but seems quite common. And I'm sorry to hear about your dog, really.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Right. "If I can do anything..." I'm not saying that's BAD to say, but it's pretty pro forma.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Clarifying my earlier point: offering to help in a way which only requires a yes/no answer is going to be cognitively easier for the recipient. They can of course provide a more elaborate response or make an alternate request, if they choose to do so and are capable of formulating such a response. But make the initial ask easy to answer. Another trap people fall into is in offering gifts or help for their own gratification. Baking a cake for someone who doesn't like eating cake (or has reasons not to eat cake) is not in fact doing them a benefit. And if the baker's response on learning of this is to rebuke them for rejecting your "gift" ... well, that just clarifies that their motivation was self-serving rather than other-serving in the first place. (Such responses, along with all sorts of other basically idiotic behaviour, is of course far too frequent. I'm hoping some reading this might recognise the patterns.)

kazinator 2y ago

> Remember, you can say whatever you want if you just wait until you’re talking to someone in a larger ring than yours. Yeah, ... no. Not whatever you want.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Important to keep in mind. You can vent and ask for things, but you can't start violating boundaries.
loveangus 2y ago
sharing privy information to outer rings will also negatively impact the inner rings, there's definitely a limit which the authors don't mention
dredmorbius 2y ago
"Whatever you want" means venting, negative thoughts, complaints, etc. Inner rings can complain out, and have no limits on those complaints. Outer rings cannot complain in. It's disappointing to see how many people fail to grasp this, even when stated simply and clearly.
- kazinator 2y ago
  Learn the difference between "fail to grasp" and "disagree". No, maybe it's not a good idea to vent, in any direction. Also: your estimate of which ring you are on relative to the person you are talking to may be off.

kazinator 2y ago

I like how this is presented in a way that's easy to understand for engineers familiar with the i386 protection architecture.

BOOSTERHIDROGEN 2y ago
Interesting, what it is exactly happen in i386?
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Protected mode: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode> Protected rings: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring> The latter pre-dates the i386 (Multics offered security rings in the 1960), but the i386 was the first popular, cheap, personal computer chip, and the first in the Intel line (8008, 8086, x86) line to offer a protected mode / ring-based hardware security model.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

I’m a bit disturbed by the way the article and most commenters here use the word trauma. Most of what’s discussed doesn’t seem to me to be "outside the normal range of human experiences". Am I completely out of the loop about how the word is used in the US now?

dredmorbius 2y ago
trauma: "an emotional wound or shock often having long-lasting effects" <https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=wn&Query=trauma https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=wn&Query=traum...> Etymology may also be informative: <https://www.etymonline.com/word/trauma https://www.etymonline.com/word/trauma> The description you give seems to come from Wikipedia's article, which at this writing follows that immediately with: "It must be understood by the affected person as directly threatening the affected person or their loved ones with death, severe bodily injury, or sexual violence." <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_trauma&oldid=1234675877 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_tra...> The situations being discussed in TFA and by numerous commenters (and certainly myself) do in fact involve direct threats of death or severe bodily injury to the affected person or their loved ones.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  Well, no, the usual definition of trauma involves being "outside the normal range of human experiences". Having cancer is extremely distressing but it is not trauma. Anyway, yours and the other answer I got confirm what I though. The word definition has indeed been widely broadened in the US.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    late 17th century: from Greek, literally ‘wound’ - a deeply distressing or disturbing experience. What's your definition.
    - RandomThoughts3 2y ago

TwoNineFive 2y ago

> Comfort IN, dump OUT. Kiss up, kick down. Got it.

fifticon 2y ago

I read it as a rule of thumb or explanation device. You can replace it with a broader and probably better principle about all two-party interactions: "Which one of us is more challenged right now?" If you are the less challenged party, you should probably be mindful of airing your grievances. And therein lies a complication: You might be dying of cancer but be a socially skilled person. And your visiting brother might be healthy as a spring baby, but as socially rude/unskilled as ever. Who is now the more challenged part - you might be dying of cancer, but you are still better equipped socially to wrangle your brother and the situation, than he is. I'm not saying we should tolerate that brother, but precisely his 'social cancer'/lack of ability to handle his (social) interactions leaves him with 'chronic social cancer' as well. This goes too for whenever you are helping someone with solving their problem - are you helping them in a sensible way, relatively to how they are challenged - often we end up fighting the 'victim' as we smother them with 'advice'. ("Well you only have this problem because you refuse to do what I told you to do earlier" yada yada).

nness 2y ago
I disagree — Cancer is something happens to you. Being socially inept is, barring medical conductions which complicate social interaction, entirely something within your control. "Chronic social cancer" does not exist. This kind of nitpicking is what the Kvetching Order avoids.
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  For having worked 30 years to get out of the socially inept zone, and given plenty of people consume known carcinogens willingly, I think this statement is a bit simplistic at best. Smokers know they should stop smoking but it's hard to do so. Yet the path is clear. If you are socially blind by nature, the path is really not clear and you are going to suffer from your ignorance while painfully battling to get out of a hole you can't see but feels very much is trapping you.
- aloisdg 2y ago
  > Being socially inept is entirely something within your control Ableism. What about neurodiversity? autism?

matthewfelgate 2y ago

Thanks for sharing because I found this very useful advice.

austin-cheney 2y ago

This is rather simple. If you are an empath you are already naturally aware of what the correct things to say are. It just comes naturally. Most people are not empaths. If you are a deliberate narcissist, like a sociopath, you are probably an asshole. It does not really matter because you won't care anyways. If you are supremely deficient in conscientiousness you have no desire to be a narcissist, but its just who you are. Whatever you say is going to be a gamble but that won't stop you from saying it anyways. So, again, for these people it really doesn't matter. For everybody else: If you don't know what to say then just keep your mouth shut. For some people this can be extremely hard, and they will fail, but at least they know what to do to fix this. Just keep your mouth shut. It is that simple. There are no tricks. Once you realize how to keep your mouth shut you will naturally get better at listening and knowing the correct things to say will eventually come more naturally, so just shut your mouth.

GTP 2y ago

"And don’t worry. You’ll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on that." How reassuring :D