In other words, if you want to blame the other person, you’ll succeed. And if you want to blame yourself, you’ll succeed.
I think I have been doing something like this for a long time:
might be a better model to them in parallel: see all the ways in which each of you are contributing to the amount of Problem.
I don’t get angry at people unless their contribution is really very clear, otherwise, I think I’m mostly in the balance you suggest. Or I see the cause in the environment (see below).
This sentence suggests that the problem is actually more of a system of differential equations:
interpersonal situations have more of a “game” ([]) element to them. The other person’s behavior might be a response to your behavior and their models of you, your behavior might be a response to their behavior and your models of them, recursively.
So why do people get into useless anger against other people or themselves? I think they haven’t converged on a solution yet! Maybe they got stuck in a local maximum—or rather, as this is high-dimensional, in a basin where the exit takes many iterations to find. Also, the environment changes.
And I think this is the neglected part in your Partial Derivative Model of Interpersonal Conflict: It doesn’t include all the parameters by which the environment controls both parties. If you include that, you arrive at an even more needlessly mathematical model :-)
If you see the cause of a conflict in the environment, you may get angry at the environment, which may incline you to change it—it is a suitable victim. Though mostly we learn not to get angry at the environment as children as it doesn’t care.
I love this analogy.
I laughed when I read this:
I think I have been doing something like this for a long time:
I don’t get angry at people unless their contribution is really very clear, otherwise, I think I’m mostly in the balance you suggest. Or I see the cause in the environment (see below).
This sentence suggests that the problem is actually more of a system of differential equations:
I think the brain is already trying to solve these Interpersonal NLPDEs. Neuronal networks can learn to approximate solutions to NLPDE (though I don’t think human brains do it in the same way).
So why do people get into useless anger against other people or themselves? I think they haven’t converged on a solution yet! Maybe they got stuck in a local maximum—or rather, as this is high-dimensional, in a basin where the exit takes many iterations to find. Also, the environment changes.
And I think this is the neglected part in your Partial Derivative Model of Interpersonal Conflict: It doesn’t include all the parameters by which the environment controls both parties. If you include that, you arrive at an even more needlessly mathematical model :-)
If you see the cause of a conflict in the environment, you may get angry at the environment, which may incline you to change it—it is a suitable victim. Though mostly we learn not to get angry at the environment as children as it doesn’t care.
Related: I learn better when I frame learning as Vengeance for losses incurred through ignorance, and you might too