
How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - lcuff
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-0407-silk-ring-theory-20130407
======
rdtsc
> stepped into the hall with Katie's husband, Pat. "I wasn't prepared for
> this," she told him. "I don't know if I can handle it."

Be suspicious of people who you don't know that well, but all of the sudden
they pop up in a moment of crisis. Sometimes they want to be part of it and go
around and brag to others how their friend / relative is suffering. It's just
a source of gossip for them. Then they get the sympathy-by-proxy and they get
others to pity them and so on.

As a general rule I find that people who want to celebrate with you when
something good happens and are happy for you are more likely to be a better
friend than the ones who show up when you're in trouble.

> "Can I bring you a pot roast?"

Also don't say "what can I do to help?". People as a rule will just say,
"Sure, thank you" but the understanding is you're not serious and you just
said it because you're expected to say. You might have meant it, but they
don't know that. Like the article mentions, say something like "Would you like
a pot roast?".

~~~
thx4allthestuff
Be wary of generalized advice. Most people suck, and for them that advice is
probably sound. But there are diamonds in this world, and when you pass them
by they are gone.

~~~
eksemplar
People are so different that general advice is always bad advice.

------
tresil
Interesting. The advice here reminds me of the “complaints go up” dialogue
from Saving Private Ryan.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbdE5LOGNQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbdE5LOGNQ)

------
TangoTrotFox
I think language coaching like this is misguided. It's just appealing to
stereotypes. When I was out the last thing I wanted was more 'comfort'. I
value sincerity as I think everybody does. If I just wanted stereotyped
sympathy and compassion, I'd read a hallmark card.

People should say what they feel they should say. So many people seem
determined to instead try to create some sort of kosher and clean model of
behavior and speech that can be friendly with everybody, when in reality it
more often just comes off as being insincere to everybody. And to take that a
step further I think that is a major contributing factor the scourge of
loneliness and weak 'real' social ties today. Two people saying what they
think the other person wants to hear hardly makes for engaging conversation.
The internet masks this artificiality by giving us that nice dopamine rush
from seeing the points by our comments go up when we say 'the right thing',
which this most certainly is not - yet it's an honest opinion, which I think
is infinitely more valuable.

~~~
eudora
Totally agree.

When I'm having a tough time over something non-trivial, and someone looks
pained and says something like "that must be hard for you" I'm just thinking
that's nice but are we friends or are you my psychologist?

If someone said damn that sucks! I went through similar situation X and
approach Y worked well for me, that's incredibly useful information! Sharing
experiences is a huge part of friendship.

This writer seems to be suggesting that I should see someone's honesty and
helpful information as a selfish insult.

Even if it's not advice, I'd much prefer the honest reaction. It's empathy. It
doesn't diminish my pain.

------
bmmayer1
> And don't worry. You'll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on
> that.

This line is jaw-dropping, and definitely true.

------
wjnc
Any tips of this kind of material for a more professional setting? I have to
give advice professionally and one of the harder parts for me is giving it in
the context of office politics.

~~~
zafka
Can you explain your situation a bit more? Does your job description entail
giving advice, or is that something that just arises?

------
skoutus
I'm sure this is good and expedient in confronting difficult situations, but
I'm not sure if it is helpful in building genuine connections. Of course, I
don't have the definitive way to build genuine connections, but ... I wouldn't
imagine this is the solution. Though, faced with a tough situation, I'll
deploy this method for safety.

------
Exuma
So does that mean no one should ever dump into the very center of the circle
(even if you're the husband)?

~~~
maxerickson
Pretty much, yes.

------
coldtea
Sorry, but life is not neatly packaged and compartmentalized like that.

People will say things that can insult or hurt someone, even if that someone
is sick. And nobody is going to follow some article's idea of what is proper
to say if common decency is not enough for them.

~~~
majos
I disagree. "Common decency" isn't innate, it relies on growing up in an
environment that encourages it, and even then the rules are not obvious to
everyone. Witness the examples in this article. Probably, those examples of
misbehavior come from decent people who didn't think carefully enough about
what they were saying. Such people would probably read this article and say
some variant of "oh crap, I made a faux pas".

The article's advice and reasoning look useful to me.

------
InclinedPlane
If people want to get better at this sort of thing I recommend the book "The
Art of Comforting" by Val Walker, it's filled with good actionable advice.

------
apo
_People who are suffering from trauma don 't need advice. They need comfort
and support._

Comfort in, dump out is a simple rule that makes sense in many situations.
Breast cancer is given as an example in the article.

I think it breaks down in many of life's situations, though.

What if the trauma is self-inflicted? At what point do those outside the ring
become enablers?

For example, a friend of yours refuses to learn how to manage resources. Every
week is a new crisis due to running out of money or being late.

At what point do you sit down with your friend and explain how their lack of
planning is hurting them?

Back to disease, what if the person is suffering negative health effects due
to being overweight? And yet they refuse to change their junk food diet.

What then? Listen, offer to do dishes and make a pot roast?

Or something more likely to help the person make the connection that their
health is in their own hands?

~~~
stonecraftwolf
Both of your scenarios assume that the issue is due to some fixable personal
failing, and both of those assumptions are unfounded. “Lack of planning” is
how you might describe “poor executive functioning” if you were to attach a
moral weight to it; in reality, poor executive functioning is itself often a
symptom of trauma, particularly complex or developmental trauma. It is also a
feature of autism, particularly in how it manifests differently among women.
Similarly, there are many people for whom no known weight loss method has
worked without intolerable costs. (Suicidal ideation, dramatic hair loss,
debilitating fatigue or cognitive deficits.) This seems to be one of those
things that people often refuse to believe, instead gas lighting the hell out
of the people who suffer from this. I have known people who’s compulsive
behavior absolutely contributed to their weight problems (and in those cases,
trauma was also a factor), but I’ve also known people who have done and tried
everything, and the way they suffer is not something I would wish on anyone.
We don’t yet fully understand how trauma, particularly long term trauma,
affects the body, let alone the metabolism, nervous system, endocrine system,
or even GI tract, but everything we are learning seems to point to profound
effects. It seems incredible to assume that there might not be purely
physiological mechanisms at work beyond the control of self-directed behavior.

In general, trauma symptoms encompass many more dysfunctional behaviors than
is often understood by lay people, and while self-destructive behaviors in
response to trauma or persistent C/PTSD are no less self-destructive because
of their origins, describing them in moralist terms is actively harmful. It is
often more accurate, and compassionate, to describe those behaviors as
adaptations to stress that have become maladaptive. They are not moral
failings; they are the result of bad conditioning. Put another way: if the
only tools you have for internal regulation are shitty tools, you learn to
depend on shitty tools to survive.

This does not make traumatized people any easier to be around or to help. You
still need to draw your own boundaries, as you noted. But if you’re able to
approach such people within your own acceptable boundaries with an open mind,
and the willingness to point them towards trauma treatment that might actually
be helpful, those conversations you’re not sure how to have might have better
outcomes.

For further reading on trauma I’d recommend Van der Kolk, Levine, and others.

~~~
DenisM
You don't have to read moral judgement into apo's comment, and if you don't
one problem comes into focus: it's well good to listen support a person
unconditionally in their difficulties, but some the sufferers need to change
their behavior and you can't effect that through nodding and bringing in
comfort food. If you want a person to change you have to tell them something
they don't want to her. At what point do switch from one to another?

~~~
nitrogen
_If you want a person to change you have to tell them something they don 't
want to [hear]._

Instead of telling, try teaching.

Show by example, ideally not in heated moments when people will reject the
advice, a better way to handle resources or stress or confrontations or
whatever.

~~~
neom
Couple that with lifting people up, showing them their worth, purpose, giving
them meaning. Then real change happens. I was 300lbs and no advice under the
sun could have brought me to and allowed me to maintain my current healthy
weight, it was only through real love did that happen.

------
exodust
This reminds me of the backhanded remark "do you understand or should I draw a
diagram?". If someone _needs_ a diagram on these matters, that's sad.

~~~
recursive
Your sadness about it doesn't eliminate the need for the diagram. So it's not
really an argument against the diagram.

~~~
exodust
This diagram is nothing more than a psychologist's theoretical doodle.

The diagram is not needed. Pasting it to your fridge, as mentioned in the
article, is not needed.

Obviously I'm not referring to "my sadness" when I use the expression "it's
sad". It's pathetic that anyone would need to refer to such a diagram before
interacting with other people on any level.

Just because a psychologist made the diagram and guidelines on sensitivity in
communication, does not automatically disqualify arguments against such a
diagram or guidelines. There's nothing to take away here except the
reinforcement of common sense when it comes to social interaction in sensitive
circumstances.

~~~
recursive
Both sadness and patheticism (real word?) can exist only in the eye of the
beholder. If _you 're_ not the one sad about it, then who is? It sounds like
you're saying "it" is just objectively and platonically sad. In my opinion,
that is not a thing.

