I liked this post—particularly the way it leads you to critique your own inner thought life. I do have some of these habits—particularly noticing interesting or admirable characteristics in people who might be difficult in other ways.
But I do disagree with the idea of making excuses for the other person. Certainly we should be rational enough to realise we don’t know exactly why the other person is ignoring me, or driving like a moron, or not showing any consideration to anyone. Perhaps they have an excuse for it, but probably they don’t. And in most of the really difficult cases that we all have to put up with, there is no realistic excuse. The boss really is a control freak. The mother in law really is being unreasonable. Making excuses seems to me to be an answer that doesn’t work.
What I tend to do instead is stay away from “That person is” declarations. For example, “That person is thoughtless.” “That person is completely unreasonable.” “That person is pointless, feckless, undeserving.” Whatever. Just don’t say it to yourself. It’s always an oversimplification anyway, and it leads straight to disliking people. Use a richer classification and understanding scheme instead.
Suppose somebody is driving recklessly. You can say “They’re a reckless maniac”, and you’ll dislike them. Or you can say “They’re driving really recklessly.” And then imagine their state of mind. They are having fun. They’re enjoying themselves. I can understand that. Of course I believe it’s the wrong thing to do, but I can see why they’re doing it. And in that process, I’m no longer disliking them for it. I’m understanding what it’s like to be them, and actually it’s not too bad.
And that seems to generally work. Mother in law is mean to me? Why is that? Does she have an idealised husband for her daughter in her mind—who is a rather different man? Is she disappointed that this never happened? Is she acting out her own disappointments in her own marriage? (My real mother in law is nothing like this) Does she have notions of what a husband ought to do that I don’t fit? I’m not making excuses here—just looking for what’s really going on in her head when she reacts as she does. It’s a better level of understanding than you get from just labelling her mean. You get to appreciate why she acts like that. And you’re beyond disliking them for it—you’re trying to see them as they see themselves.
You can even be quite ruthless. “That car sure looks old! That correlates with low income, and lower intelligence—it may not be driven as well as most. Give it slightly more attention and space. That one has a dent in it—they may not be such a good driver.” You’re trying to gain knowledge, and that’s a process where the emotional positive is gaining understanding, not in finding a positive category to put them into. And this is perfectly compatible with meeting that driver later, finding out how they see themselves, you, and their place in the world, and liking them for it.
That car sure looks old! That correlates with low income, and lower intelligence
Insufficient data, though perhaps a reasonable heuristic. Many people do this, despite being able to afford a more expensive car. Why? Driving an older model high-end car is a good way to avoid the attention of thieves, while retaining a lot of utility. My 14 year old Mercedes has a feature set comparable to a recent model Corolla, but thieves will pay more attention to the Corolla. A car is also a bad place to put one’s money. It’s much better to buy a cheaper car and invest the difference.
I find it easy to agree with this as I’ve owned quite a few old cars myself (mostly by keeping a newer car for a long time). It really is just a heuristic. It’s not even a heavily weighted heuristic for me—I take much more notice of driving errors like wandering across lane dividers than the age of the vehicle. But driving is probably the most dangerous thing I do and it’s worth taking as much statistical advantage as I can get....
I liked this post—particularly the way it leads you to critique your own inner thought life. I do have some of these habits—particularly noticing interesting or admirable characteristics in people who might be difficult in other ways.
But I do disagree with the idea of making excuses for the other person. Certainly we should be rational enough to realise we don’t know exactly why the other person is ignoring me, or driving like a moron, or not showing any consideration to anyone. Perhaps they have an excuse for it, but probably they don’t. And in most of the really difficult cases that we all have to put up with, there is no realistic excuse. The boss really is a control freak. The mother in law really is being unreasonable. Making excuses seems to me to be an answer that doesn’t work.
What I tend to do instead is stay away from “That person is” declarations. For example, “That person is thoughtless.” “That person is completely unreasonable.” “That person is pointless, feckless, undeserving.” Whatever. Just don’t say it to yourself. It’s always an oversimplification anyway, and it leads straight to disliking people. Use a richer classification and understanding scheme instead.
Suppose somebody is driving recklessly. You can say “They’re a reckless maniac”, and you’ll dislike them. Or you can say “They’re driving really recklessly.” And then imagine their state of mind. They are having fun. They’re enjoying themselves. I can understand that. Of course I believe it’s the wrong thing to do, but I can see why they’re doing it. And in that process, I’m no longer disliking them for it. I’m understanding what it’s like to be them, and actually it’s not too bad.
And that seems to generally work. Mother in law is mean to me? Why is that? Does she have an idealised husband for her daughter in her mind—who is a rather different man? Is she disappointed that this never happened? Is she acting out her own disappointments in her own marriage? (My real mother in law is nothing like this) Does she have notions of what a husband ought to do that I don’t fit? I’m not making excuses here—just looking for what’s really going on in her head when she reacts as she does. It’s a better level of understanding than you get from just labelling her mean. You get to appreciate why she acts like that. And you’re beyond disliking them for it—you’re trying to see them as they see themselves.
You can even be quite ruthless. “That car sure looks old! That correlates with low income, and lower intelligence—it may not be driven as well as most. Give it slightly more attention and space. That one has a dent in it—they may not be such a good driver.” You’re trying to gain knowledge, and that’s a process where the emotional positive is gaining understanding, not in finding a positive category to put them into. And this is perfectly compatible with meeting that driver later, finding out how they see themselves, you, and their place in the world, and liking them for it.
Insufficient data, though perhaps a reasonable heuristic. Many people do this, despite being able to afford a more expensive car. Why? Driving an older model high-end car is a good way to avoid the attention of thieves, while retaining a lot of utility. My 14 year old Mercedes has a feature set comparable to a recent model Corolla, but thieves will pay more attention to the Corolla. A car is also a bad place to put one’s money. It’s much better to buy a cheaper car and invest the difference.
I find it easy to agree with this as I’ve owned quite a few old cars myself (mostly by keeping a newer car for a long time). It really is just a heuristic. It’s not even a heavily weighted heuristic for me—I take much more notice of driving errors like wandering across lane dividers than the age of the vehicle. But driving is probably the most dangerous thing I do and it’s worth taking as much statistical advantage as I can get....
Right. It’s not like the false positives are going to bite you in that context. False negatives might be pretty serious.
I know plenty of very smart people who have old crummy cars that get them from A to B and act as pretty effective countersignals.