I really disagree with some of what seem to be the implicit premises of this post: mainly, that caring for someone includes proactively taking responsibility for their problems.
No, their problems are theirs, and respecting this is the drama-and-conflict-minimizing strategy. There are other, better ways to care for others— but violating their sovereignty is not it.
I think there’s another implicit premise of this post ~”external events cause someone’s internal subjective experience” (e,g.: Alice’s actions can emotionally harm Bob), and I think that’s most definitely false. Subjective experience is a matter of interpretation upon sensation. There are better and worse ways to interpret the world, of course, but some are bad. And I claim that the interpretations that cause suffering are bad. Interpretations are flexible (though not consciously! through a different manner).
I’ve been thinking about something close to this for about 9 months now, and I should be publishing my Big Post in the next month or two which explains these disagreements and provides an alternative model. DM me if you’d like to review the draft.
I really disagree with some of what seem to be the implicit premises of this post: mainly, that caring for someone includes proactively taking responsibility for their problems.
No, their problems are theirs, and respecting this is the drama-and-conflict-minimizing strategy. There are other, better ways to care for others— but violating their sovereignty is not it.
I think this is at least somewhat addressed by this section:
Note that none of the above is about whose fault it is that Choni overslept his interview—it’s his responsibility to make sure he wakes up in time, and you’re not to blame for his failure to do so. From the perspective of The Official Natural Law Code On Roommates’ Rights and Responsibilities, you have in no way violated a stricture or crossed a boundary (if anything, waking Choni is frowned upon by The Code).
But insofar as we (Ricki and Avital) aspire to live cooperatively and provide support for one another and for others, talking over our choices using MCE has been especially fruitful for us.
As I interpret it, the default is “leave me alone” (plus, I guess, anything you’ve explicitly agreed to, like a rotation of dishwashing duties), and any more intimate involvement with their lives is something you opt into. Which seems all right prima facie. As long as person A doesn’t surprise people by unilaterally doing the “more intimate” thing, or unilaterally expecting others to do it.
Note that none of the above is about whose fault it is that Choni overslept his interview—it’s his responsibility to make sure he wakes up in time, and you’re not to blame for his failure to do so.
however, see (bolding mine):
You see him sleeping and leave him alone. When he wakes up at 4:30pm, he has missed his 2pm job interview and is annoyed. What went wrong? Here are three plausible stories:
There was a modeling error: You falsely believed that Choni wanted to nap all afternoon—you didn’t know he had an important interview, or thought he had rescheduled it—so you decided to let him sleep, acting reasonably based on your bad model.
these seem to contradict? “None of the above is about whose fault” vs “What went wrong? […] You […]”.
the default is “leave me alone” (plus, I guess, anything you’ve explicitly agreed to, like a rotation of dishwashing duties)
I agree
, and any more intimate involvement with their lives is something you opt into
I possibly disagree. Qualifications:
they have to ask you, not you opt in
there are some things they could ask you to do that are impossible for you to do (and yet common misconceived as possible)
for example, it is impossible to “make your roommate happy (without their help)” or to “do their taxes accurately (without their help)”
I imagine that subscribing to your model might also get tricky and drama-inducing if one roommate says to another “I want you to help me anytime you think you could help me”
I really disagree with some of what seem to be the implicit premises of this post: mainly, that caring for someone includes proactively taking responsibility for their problems.
No, their problems are theirs, and respecting this is the drama-and-conflict-minimizing strategy. There are other, better ways to care for others— but violating their sovereignty is not it.
I think there’s another implicit premise of this post ~”external events cause someone’s internal subjective experience” (e,g.: Alice’s actions can emotionally harm Bob), and I think that’s most definitely false. Subjective experience is a matter of interpretation upon sensation. There are better and worse ways to interpret the world, of course, but some are bad. And I claim that the interpretations that cause suffering are bad. Interpretations are flexible (though not consciously! through a different manner).
I’ve been thinking about something close to this for about 9 months now, and I should be publishing my Big Post in the next month or two which explains these disagreements and provides an alternative model. DM me if you’d like to review the draft.
I think this is at least somewhat addressed by this section:
As I interpret it, the default is “leave me alone” (plus, I guess, anything you’ve explicitly agreed to, like a rotation of dishwashing duties), and any more intimate involvement with their lives is something you opt into. Which seems all right prima facie. As long as person A doesn’t surprise people by unilaterally doing the “more intimate” thing, or unilaterally expecting others to do it.
I agree with
however, see (bolding mine):
these seem to contradict? “None of the above is about whose fault” vs “What went wrong? […] You […]”.
I agree
I possibly disagree. Qualifications:
they have to ask you, not you opt in
there are some things they could ask you to do that are impossible for you to do (and yet common misconceived as possible)
for example, it is impossible to “make your roommate happy (without their help)” or to “do their taxes accurately (without their help)”
I imagine that subscribing to your model might also get tricky and drama-inducing if one roommate says to another “I want you to help me anytime you think you could help me”