People who think empathy is everything

[eternalsummer]

I don't understand what you mean, exactly.  Either there is an objective truth or there isn't.  Whether someone believes there is an objective truth or believes there is no objective truth (in which case, believes that there is objectively no objective truth, which doesn't really make sense) doesn't make an objective truth true or false.

 

I must be missing the point somehow.  I'm much better at understanding things through examples, if you have an example.

 

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is that for the sake of the truth, it doesn't matter whether I agree.  I can believe 3+3=7 all day long and it doesn't have anything to do with whether 3+3 does equal 7.

Edited January 26, 2018 by eternalsummer

[HS Mom in NC]

I have a close friend who is very dominated by her feelings even when her brain tells her otherwise. It's negatively affecting her life in several important areas.  She's getting better and knows it's a problem. She was the one who brought it up the first time.  When we discuss things I just logically explain my take on whatever issue it is and leave it at that.  It isn't my job to get her to agree with me. I don't emotionally need her or anyone else's agreement on any particular issue.  I'm find with disagreement.

I do think there should be a distinction between those more emotionally inclined like my friend and those who I would say "emote all over themselves." The extreme type are people who I do think have issues that require professional help, just like people who can't empathize need professional help. 

[Bluegoat]

I don't learn anything from feelers. I learn a lot from thinkers!

 

I think the poster upthread who mentioned self identity is bang on. I've been on both sides of this equation - the thinker and the feeler (though I actually don't think they are opposites - strong feeling can push a person to investigate via thought, and a thought out position can accrue feeling to it.)

 

Imo, there is a large element of maintaining both a self identity (I am kind/I am on the right side) and a group identity (I am not those others/I belong with the good people).

 

And actually, thinking more, I don't believe the situation you describe with your friend, OP, is really about feeling. After all, thinkers do not suddenly stop feeling while they think. And feelers are not mindless. It's not a contest between the kind but rather stupid weepers and the unfeeling robots.

 

I suspect it's more to do with group affiliations, and how invested a person is in protecting their group affiliations. How susceptible to orthodoxy they are, but more importantly, how sensitive they are to social punishment if they take a position outside of those accepted by the group. 

 

It would not surprise me if that sensitivity was inborn, and part of one's temperament. I think we could probably all look back over our lives from childhood and observe behaviours that indicate to us our levels of sensitivity in this area. 

 

I also wonder whether a desire to treat all issues in a consistent (thinking) manner has anything to do with levels of conscientiousness. It's possible that high levels in this trait can overcome even moderate to high levels of sensitivity to social exclusion, because lack of conscientiousness is even more uncomfortable than exclusion by the group.

 

Yes, I think it was eternalsummer who suggested that was part of it, and I'm inclined to agree that is actually a significant part of the behaviour.  I know my friend was really upset when a particular controversy made her feel like she had to take a position outside of the one she felt belonged to the "right" group of people, or be inconsistent with another issue where she held the right position.  

 

I'm not sure you can usually say that to people though - it would seem pretty patronizing and barring them saying something that really leads in that direction I don't know that it would be very fair.

 

What I would say though is that both my friend, and her friend, and others I have talked to, are the ones framing it as a matter of empathy, and the non-empathetic people being unkind (they don't frame it as them being more rational, for sure.)  So I suppose what I am wondering is how to deal with that way of thinking about it when that's the argument actually being put forward.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

If you've studied philosophy, sociology or epistemology at any point in time, you will have a better background in thinking of topics from different points of view and within differing, but specific, "properties." I'm not the person, to explain it sufficiently. Do a google search, if you are interested. 

 

Sometimes people explain objective truth as capital 'T' Truth, meaning that there is one truth that is a constant and unchanging absolute. These are areas that cannot have a variety of correct answers no matter what point of view you are coming from. I've heard this particularly in the area of religion when talking about God. 

 

Well, I don't know, I have studied some of those things and generally speaking, I'd say I am inclined to say that the sort of relativism you are describing is incoherent.

 

Now, you can talk about limitations on what you are claiming, but then there is no real contradiction, or you can make statements that aren't really all that meaningful, like your example about the ice-cream - truth statements about ice-cream being better are only meaningful within the context of the individual's preference, so again, you aren't talking about multiple truths. You can say things within different levels of reality or hierarchies, and because all are limited, they may be all true, but again, they are not objectively, from a universal POV, contradictory.  

 

And I suppose the other element is that when we speak we are generally using models, and we may have different models to describe the same objective reality, and they may be equally good models.  This is an area where sometimes people do erroneously claim one model is objective and others are therefore "wrong" but again, that's a misunderstanding about the relativity of language more than reality.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think you can deal with it, really.

 

Because it's an appeal designed to bring you back to the 'right' side of the argument.

 

It's not really about empathy. It's more like moral persuasion - you are being shown the error of your non-empathetic ways in order that you amend them. 

 

 

Well, that just makes me want to be really disagreeable.

[amy g.]

This is not across the board, but a couple of feelers I know believe that their emotion takes the place of action.

 

They have so much empathy for their fellow humans, but do they ever do anything to help?

 

I really couldn’t empathize with my neighbor who is a single parent with no child support.

 

I have no idea about how hard that would be.

 

But rationally, It makes no sense for her kid to have to go to the crappy public school when I’m teaching my kid the same grade level right next door.

 

It only made sense for me to fold her kid in. And since I was already making dinner for a big family, it just made sense for me to send him home with dinner for the 2 of them each evening.

 

I didn’t need to feel some emotion about it to take action.

Edited January 26, 2018 by amy g.

[Frances]

As a whole I see people basing almost everything in life on how they feel. This applies nearly everywhere, to nearly everything. In my particular domain (pastor’s wife), I spend a lot of energy redirecting people to scripture over their feelings.

 

Claim and evidence is something that completely disappears as soon as a person starts a sentence with, “I just feel like...â€

This is so true. As part of my job, I have to follow our state legislature closely, especially certain committees. And it’s so frustrating to see them often ignore facts and data and vote based on feelings. I think it’s even worse at the federal level.

[poppy]

So Bluegoat (the OP) and I went back and forth quite a bit in a different thread.    I don't want to re-hash that, at ALL, but I noticed that when I didn't agree with her, or when I didn't answer her questions the in precisely the way she framed them,  she accused me  of  just trying to be "nice" and focusing  on "feelings" instead of the facts.

 

I'm not saying she's wrong. But from my POV the conversation felt like this (imagine I'm the first speaker):

 

"I homeschool because I want my kids to love learning and not  be bullied"

"But what about socialization"
"I'm not worried about socialization; they're doing great. Here are all the great things about homeschooling!"
"But what about socialization".

"We really aren't considering switching back to public school....."

"show me studies that prove this socialization is as good as school"

"there aren't really apple to apple comparsions.  Look my  kids are doing great and next week we're going to a new museum"

"But what about socialization".

 

It was like hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

I am 100% sure that she felt that talking to ME was hitting against a brick wall, too.  I'm absolutely not posting this to say she was wrong / is wrong.  Just.... I am going to guess this is a similar scenario.    Two people having a completely different conversation next to each other ,not with each other. 

[Rosie_0801]

I'd say that it's pretty tricky to emote oneself to workable solutions.

 

In some ways, care doesn't really mattter as much as recognition that X is a problem, and thinking a way through to a real world solution. Recognising a problem is a cognitive process - the level of feeling attached to it is pretty irrelevant in a way. 

 

Watch it. You'll get diagnosed with something, speaking like that. :glare:

[kitten18]

So Bluegoat (the OP) and I went back and forth quite a bit in a different thread. I don't want to re-hash that, at ALL, but I noticed that when I didn't agree with her, or when I didn't answer her questions the in precisely the way she framed them, she accused me of just trying to be "nice" and focusing on "feelings" instead of the facts.

 

I'm not saying she's wrong. But from my POV the conversation felt like this (imagine I'm the first speaker):

 

"I homeschool because I want my kids to love learning and not be bullied"

"But what about socialization"

"I'm not worried about socialization; they're doing great. Here are all the great things about homeschooling!"

"But what about socialization".

"We really aren't considering switching back to public school....."

"show me studies that prove this socialization is as good as school"

"there aren't really apple to apple comparsions. Look my kids are doing great and next week we're going to a new museum"

"But what about socialization".

 

It was like hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

I am 100% sure that she felt that talking to ME was hitting against a brick wall, too. I'm absolutely not posting this to say she was wrong / is wrong. Just.... I am going to guess this is a similar scenario. Two people having a completely different conversation next to each other ,not with each other.

I need to read the thread now. Can you tell me which one it was?

[eternalsummer]

So Bluegoat (the OP) and I went back and forth quite a bit in a different thread.    I don't want to re-hash that, at ALL, but I noticed that when I didn't agree with her, or when I didn't answer her questions the in precisely the way she framed them,  she accused me  of  just trying to be "nice" and focusing  on "feelings" instead of the facts.

 

I'm not saying she's wrong. But from my POV the conversation felt like this (imagine I'm the first speaker):

 

"I homeschool because I want my kids to love learning and not  be bullied"

"But what about socialization"

"I'm not worried about socialization; they're doing great. Here are all the great things about homeschooling!"

"But what about socialization".

"We really aren't considering switching back to public school....."

"show me studies that prove this socialization is as good as school"

"there aren't really apple to apple comparsions.  Look my  kids are doing great and next week we're going to a new museum"

"But what about socialization".

 

It was like hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

I am 100% sure that she felt that talking to ME was hitting against a brick wall, too.  I'm absolutely not posting this to say she was wrong / is wrong.  Just.... I am going to guess this is a similar scenario.    Two people having a completely different conversation next to each other ,not with each other. 

 

 

I can see how that would be a frustrating conversation.

 

To me, it sounds like this:  (hypothetical, because of course I don't think homeschooling is bad for kids and in fact we homeschool)

 

Me: "Homeschooling is bad for kids on the whole.  Socialization is the main problem.  Here are X reasons socialization is a problem for homeschooled kids, and a couple of studies to support them."

 

Other person: "We're getting along fine with homeschooling, here are some of the great things we get to do every week."

 

Me: "That's nice, but these studies show that homeschoolers have x problems due to a lack of socialization.  There's also more potential for abuse because the kids don't get out enough."

 

Other person: "I'm so offended you're suggesting that I abuse my kids.  Of course I don't!  We go to the park every week."

 

Me: "That's nice, but again, the links between homeschooling and social deficits due to lack of socialization are clear.  X number of kids died last year from abusive homeschooling families and X% of them are unable to form lasting relationships in college according to Y study."

 

Other person: "My kids are doing fine in college.  all of my friends' kids are doing fine in college.  Suggesting that homeschooling is the cause of these problems is unacceptable; people have the right to determine the way they educate their kids and I think the studies are suspicious anyway because I've never met an abused kid."

 

and so on

[eternalsummer]

As far as emotional responses, what I get is something more like this:

 

Me: "Mom, we're not eating factory farmed food anymore.  We've decided it's morally unacceptable for us, so we're going to avoid it at all times."

Mom: "But what will you do when DD5 goes to a birthday party?"

Me: "Well, we'll send cake and substitute food if necessary."

Mom: "You're a fanatic!  I've raised a fanatic!"

Me: "Well, dietary restrictions are pretty normal across a variety of cultures and religions."

Mom: "But she'll be so SAD when she can't have BIRTHDAY CAKE!  You're depriving her of the normal joys of childhood!"

Me: "Well, if you look at these studies about how factory farmed animals are treated, it seems to me like something we really can't compromise on."

Mom: "But what will she eat at SNACKTIME at KINDERGARTEN?  She'll be completely left out!"

Me: "Yes, but we can't participate in the abuse of animals just so DD5 doesn't feel left out during snacktime."

Mom: "Why do you have to be so purist about everything?  Everyone does the wrong thing sometimes, it's natural.  You'll be hurting DD5 just for an idea."

 

ad nauseum

[poppy]

I need to read the thread now. Can you tell me which one it was?

Sorry no, got locked, and you know the expression about bygones !

[kitten18]

Sorry no, got locked, and you know the expression about bygones !

Got it. 😜 thanks

[eternalsummer]

To be fair, I do this to DH All The Time.  Often if he has a new idea about something, or an idea I haven't really confronted yet, I have to go think about it on my own in silence for a long time- maybe weeks - before I can talk to him about it rationally, without crying.  None of these are personal ideas, though I guess some of them affect me personally (in the way that "is there a God" or "should women be drafted in case of war" or "is slavery ever morally acceptable" affect me personally).  

 

I think that a person to whom you are close having an idea or belief that you find really challenging to your personal understanding of the world, whether you might eventually agree with them on the merits or not, is for some people hard to deal with emotionally.  I don't know why this is.  He does not react the same way to my ideas.

 

ETA: I should note that the issues mentioned above are hypotheticals, of course.  Our actual discussions are different but similarly abstract/general and thorny.

Edited January 26, 2018 by eternalsummer

[HS Mom in NC]

As far as emotional responses, what I get is something more like this:

 

Me: "Mom, we're not eating factory farmed food anymore.  We've decided it's morally unacceptable for us, so we're going to avoid it at all times."

Mom: "But what will you do when DD5 goes to a birthday party?"

Me: "Well, we'll send cake and substitute food if necessary."

Mom: "You're a fanatic!  I've raised a fanatic!"

Me: "Well, dietary restrictions are pretty normal across a variety of cultures and religions."

Mom: "But she'll be so SAD when she can't have BIRTHDAY CAKE!  You're depriving her of the normal joys of childhood!"

Me: "Well, if you look at these studies about how factory farmed animals are treated, it seems to me like something we really can't compromise on."

Mom: "But what will she eat at SNACKTIME at KINDERGARTEN?  She'll be completely left out!"

Me: "Yes, but we can't participate in the abuse of animals just so DD5 doesn't feel left out during snacktime."

Mom: "Why do you have to be so purist about everything?  Everyone does the wrong thing sometimes, it's natural.  You'll be hurting DD5 just for an idea."

 

ad nauseum

 

My problem with both people in this conversation is that they each feel the need to convert the other to their way of thinking. No one should be engaged in this so long.  In all honesty, this is very adolescent behavior. A parent gets to decide what their house rules are for their kids in relation to voluntary dietary restrictions.  Like it or not, think it's crazy or rational, if you're not then parent, don't engage in trying to tell another parent what their kid should eat or why unless they asked you what you thought about it.  I don't agree with the parent's thinking here, but it's not.my.kid. so it wouldn't be my place to say anything about it if it hadn't been presented for discussion.

 

And why on earth would the parent of a child feel the need to convince someone other than the other parent of the child living in the home what those voluntary restrictions are?  Grown adults don't answer to their mommies about their own parenting decisions. It's like desperately trying to get approval for homeschooling.  Simply say, "This is how our family has decided to do things.  Pass the bean dip.  Do you have plans for summer/the holidays/ etc?" And if the other person keeps reengaging just reply, "I've said what I have to say on the topic.  There's no need to go on about it.  So let's talk about something else."  and if they continue in spite of that, hang up the phone, leave the location, ask them to leave, whatever. Don't engage.

 

Sheesh!  If people would just respect and enforce boundaries, nonsense like this would be reduced dramatically.  Unless someone is failing to provide adequate caloric intake for their kid, it's nobody else's business what kind of food is or isn't being consumed.  This whole conversation is like listening to middle schoolers squabble.

 

And for the parent making this decision, it's good to see the personal responsibility of sending a reasonable substitute rather than expecting someone else to feed your kid outside of their own norms.  I know people who don't and are endlessly bitter because everyone else isn't making it happen for their kid.

[wintermom]

I don't understand what you mean, exactly.  Either there is an objective truth or there isn't.  Whether someone believes there is an objective truth or believes there is no objective truth (in which case, believes that there is objectively no objective truth, which doesn't really make sense) doesn't make an objective truth true or false.

 

I must be missing the point somehow.  I'm much better at understanding things through examples, if you have an example.

 

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is that for the sake of the truth, it doesn't matter whether I agree.  I can believe 3+3=7 all day long and it doesn't have anything to do with whether 3+3 does equal 7.

 

I'm trying to explain what relativism is all about, and how it relates to the original post. I think that is one of the reasons why the OP is having a tough time figuring out what her friend is doing in her posts. Sometimes the friend is looking at the subjective truths of an issue from certain people's point of view and treating them as objective truth, whether there are facts to support them or not. 

 

And then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding completely what relativism is all about, and it has nothing to do with the OP. 

[eternalsummer]

My mom and I were living 1 mile apart at the time, and we came over pretty frequently (I'd say 3-4x a week, minimum).  It was in fact necessary to explain to her why we couldn't eat this or that thing at her house anymore.

 

I think when you're pretty close to someone - that is, you spend many hours a week with them and have for years, and they are your parents - it's pretty normal to explain or discuss major life changes.

 

That said, we had that conversation once in that way.  After that it has largely been like this:

 

Mom: "Hey, I can take DD7 to the birthday party if you're too busy this weekend."

Me: "Great!  Remember, she can't eat the cake.  I'll send a substitute."

Mom: "Ugh, that will be so hard for her!  I wish you'd reconsider."

Me: "Sorry Mom, we can't reconsider.  It starts at 3pm and I'll have a present ready."

 

(after event)

Mom: "I have to tell you, I let DD7 eat the cake.  I didn't want to make a fuss in front of the other parents."

Me: [radio silence].

 

and that is the last time she took DD7 to a party.

 

Occasionally after that she'd bring it up and at first I'd say well, Mom, look at this video or here's this explanation or whatever. But pretty soon we both realized, I think, that the other person wasn't going to change her mind.

 

Eventually it tailed off and now we do not ever speak about it ever and she is actually super respectful.

 

But I think both her response and my frustration with her response were pretty normal.  As I said, I respond that way sometimes to really challenging ideas or beliefs my DH has.  I don't care if people on the internet think X about Y, but DH thinking X about Y throws me for a loop and my first response is not rational thought but my emotional reaction: "You can't think that!  How are we even married?! I married a [insert derogatory and often inaccurate slur here, similar to "racist" or "bigot" or whatever suits]! (tears)"

 

Now, reacting that way to people in whom you don't have a personal emotional investment strikes me as weird.  But maybe that's just because those people are more feeling types than I am - similarly, especially when I was younger, things like national tragedies on TV didn't affect me (or most of my friends) the way adults seemed to want them to.  9/11 in particular did not bring me to tears; I didn't know any of those people.

 

[unsinkable]

I need to read the thread now. Can you tell me which one it was?

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/666789-why-do-i-keep-seeing-the-word-women-spelled-as-womyn/

[eternalsummer]

That's true, people are invested in things other than people; self-identity is a big one.  That does make sense, then, the automatic emotional reaction to a challenge to one's religion, institution, identity group, whatever.

 

But I think to carry on a discussion that way after the initial emotional reaction is a bad idea, generally speaking.  Certainly when I start feeling so strongly about something that I can't address it rationally - can't even think about it because it makes me so uncomfortable - I know I need to get a little space to think on my own before I confront someone else about it again.

[eternalsummer]

There's all kinds of investments though. They don't have to be personal. They can be institutional, or organisational, or political or religious or even intellectual. 

 

Fwiw I think attempting to reduce cognitive dissonance by refuting an idea under the guise of maintaining a caring or kind persona is really normal. And I don't think we are necessarily conscious of what we are doing - we may be sincere in believing that we just 'care' so much we can't believe others can be of good will and think differently.

 

 

This one in particular is very hard for me to square sometimes.  I do find it very hard to believe that conscientious, caring, "good" people believe and act differently than I do in some ways.    Sometimes I think that is a deficit in my own humility or ability to empathize, or that I might even (gasp) be wrong; other times I think, well, maybe virtually everyone else is just really deluded or really uncaring or something else I'm not seeing.

 

The vast majority of the time, I write it off as an unanswerable mystery of the universe, as confusing to me as what happens after you die.

[wintermom]

The problem is relativism is when people start to believe it is absolute. 

 

There are some absolute truths, though. It's when everything becomes an absolute truth, or only certain people's opinion become an absolute truth that tempers fly. Like in George Orwell's Animal Farm quote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Everyone's truth is equal, but some are more equal than others. 

[eternalsummer]

If your opinion is the truth, then it's the truth.  It doesn't matter how mad other people are or aren't about it.  If your opinion isn't the truth, it isn't the truth.

 

If it is a situation where the truth of the question requires subjective opinion (like, what is the truth of your favorite flavor of ice cream), then there is still only one truth - your opinion about your favorite flavor of ice cream.  If someone else says, no, your favorite flavor is something else - he's wrong.  But if one of you thinks the earth is round and the other thinks the earth is flat, one of you is wrong. 

 

Now, whose opinion holds in society's perception can change - there are societies that think or have thought the earth was flat and societies that think or have thought the earth was round.

 

But none of that changes the shape of the earth, if that makes sense.

[eternalsummer]

The exception (I am criticising my own post) is maybe something like The Will to Believe, where you have a train robber robbing a train, and everyone on the train says well, he's going to get our things, we can't stop him, then he won't be stopped; alternatively, if everyone says, let's stop him together, then he will be stopped.

 

So different opinions about the future (in this case) do make for different facts in the future.  William James extrapolates it to considerations of the present but I think (though I may have misunderstood it or be misremembering it) that when he says you must have faith in God because he might exist (given that you consider God a live hypothesis) and your belief allows your relationship with him to exist where your disbelief negates a relationship that might have existed, he is presuming the actual, real existence of God.  (that is to say, if God doesn't really exist, in his theory, you would be pouring out belief into a dead seed, something that isn't real - but you wouldn't have anything to lose by it so you might as well water the seed).  I think I've begun to confuse William James with the Mormon parable of the seed, which I was exposed to at about the same time, so I will stop before I confuse myself any farther.

[wintermom]

If your opinion is the truth, then it's the truth.  It doesn't matter how mad other people are or aren't about it.  If your opinion isn't the truth, it isn't the truth.

 

If it is a situation where the truth of the question requires subjective opinion (like, what is the truth of your favorite flavor of ice cream), then there is still only one truth - your opinion about your favorite flavor of ice cream.  If someone else says, no, your favorite flavor is something else - he's wrong.  But if one of you thinks the earth is round and the other thinks the earth is flat, one of you is wrong. 

 

Now, whose opinion holds in society's perception can change - there are societies that think or have thought the earth was flat and societies that think or have thought the earth was round.

 

But none of that changes the shape of the earth, if that makes sense.

 

For people standing on earth, building houses, buildings and roads, it's pretty close to flat (or can be flattened out enough to function as flat). It's when we can change our perspective and see that one thing that looks and functions as flat isn't really flat when seen from much farther away. The earth isn't perfectly round either, though.. It's slightly flattened at each pole and bulges around the equator. 

 

Is a rock a solid mass? Yes and no. Using our eyes, it appears so, but if we could examine it with a microscope powerful enough to see the empty space within each atom, we would say it is not a solid mass. 

 

There are a million examples of situations that can be seen in many different ways and each way has truth to it. 

[Targhee]

See, this makes honestly no sense to me.

 

The objective truth is that your favorite flavor is chocolate and mine is vanilla. That's not subjective. It might change, the way the weather might change, but it's still either true (your favorite is x flavor at this time) or not.

 

 

You could maybe try to say that the best flavor of ice cream is subjective, but what you're really saying (and maybe this is the point) is that defining ice cream in terms of best requires accounting for individual preference (because ice cream is created in part to please people), in which case it will vary by person.

 

But if you were to say what is the best ice cream in terms of nutritional profile for a person with x metabolism and dietary needs, there would still be an objective answer.

Yes. I can't stand the term "my truth" or "your truth" - there is objective fact and there is subjective perception. Real truth is incredibly elusive, just ask any philosopher. Don't profane truth by making it subjective and common.

[eternalsummer]

You can split hairs about the precision of language, and certainly arguments arise that way (when someone says something and the other person thinks they mean something more general or more specific or something else entirely),.

 

But a lack of precision in language doesn't change the truth of the shape of the earth.  when I say "Is the earth round or flat" you, as a native English speaking member of Western society, generally know what I mean.  If you say, well, it's flat from where I look from my house or, well, it isn't actually exactly spherical, I can clarify, and often arguments do need clarification and specific definition of terms.

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

My mom and I were living 1 mile apart at the time, and we came over pretty frequently (I'd say 3-4x a week, minimum).  It was in fact necessary to explain to her why we couldn't eat this or that thing at her house anymore.

Yes, but only once, matter of factly and not engaging in a debate about it.

 

I think when you're pretty close to someone - that is, you spend many hours a week with them and have for years, and they are your parents - it's pretty normal to explain or discuss major life changes.

I don't think that's true in healthy, boundary respecting relationships. I am close my parents and live close by and don't discuss major things like that beyond mentioning it and leaving it there.  I think what you're experiencing may be typical of your interactions with your parents, but isn't normal adult child interaction with a parent.

 

That said, we had that conversation once in that way.  After that it has largely been like this:

 

Mom: "Hey, I can take DD7 to the birthday party if you're too busy this weekend."

Me: "Great!  Remember, she can't eat the cake.  I'll send a substitute."

Mom: "Ugh, that will be so hard for her!  I wish you'd reconsider."

Me: "Sorry Mom, we can't reconsider.  It starts at 3pm and I'll have a present ready."

 

(after event)

Mom: "I have to tell you, I let DD7 eat the cake.  I didn't want to make a fuss in front of the other parents."

Me: [radio silence].

 

Actually, we can always reconsider any position we have.  We simply choose not to.  You're not helpless or stuck, you like the rest of us have simply come to a decision and you're done considering.  Own it.  We all need to own our decisions.

 

and that is the last time she took DD7 to a party.

 

Good choice. I wouldn't have put a grandparent in the position of enforcing my voluntary dietary restriction she has so clearly not agreed with at a social event.  Too risky. It's not realistic to expect her to follow through in an awkward to her social situation.  Idealists often struggle with realistic expectations of others who don't share their convictions.

 

Occasionally after that she'd bring it up and at first I'd say well, Mom, look at this video or here's this explanation or whatever.

 

AAAnd there's the problem.  Again, idealists usually struggle with the idea that other people will not react the same way to the same information that convinced the idealist.  They seem to think that the reason the other person doesn't agree with them is because the diealist's point of view wasn't explained clearly enough, so they continue to engage for faaaaar to long in presenting the point of view.  If only!  If only it's explained clearly the other person will see that the idealist is clearly right.  But that's not the case.  They look at the same thing and see it differently because people are different.

 

But pretty soon we both realized, I think, that the other person wasn't going to change her mind

 

I wouldn't have labeled that as "pretty soon."  Pretty soon was after the first conversation or two.  After conversations 3+ it's been a long time.

 

Eventually it tailed off and now we do not ever speak about it ever and she is actually super respectful.

 

Good for her.  She's growing as a person.

 

But I think both her response and my frustration with her response were pretty normal.  As I said, I respond that way sometimes to really challenging ideas or beliefs my DH has.  I don't care if people on the internet think X about Y, but DH thinking X about Y throws me for a loop and my first response is not rational thought but my emotional reaction: "You can't think that!  How are we even married?! I married a [insert derogatory and often inaccurate slur here, similar to "racist" or "bigot" or whatever suits]! (tears)"

 

That's not normal.  Most people by adulthood understand that different people, even those close to them, can have completely different points of view on any number of things and aren't reduced to tears by it.  I think that's something that needs to be evaluated and dealt with by a licensed medical professional.  Yes, he CAN think that.  He DOES think that.   I think you need to change your internal monologue to reflect reality.  The reaction "How are we even married?" seems to me to be a distorted view of marriage.  Do you honestly expect married people to agree on all issues?  How on earth could a person possibly expect that?  Again, it appears to me to be a strangely idealistic view of something in direct contrast to easily observable reality.  Married people often disagree on issues.

 

Now, reacting that way to people in whom you don't have a personal emotional investment strikes me as weird.  But maybe that's just because those people are more feeling types than I am - similarly, especially when I was younger, things like national tragedies on TV didn't affect me (or most of my friends) the way adults seemed to want them to.  9/11 in particular did not bring me to tears; I didn't know any of those people.

 

[SKL]

As far as emotional responses, what I get is something more like this:

 

Me: "Mom, we're not eating factory farmed food anymore.  We've decided it's morally unacceptable for us, so we're going to avoid it at all times."

Mom: "But what will you do when DD5 goes to a birthday party?"

Me: "Well, we'll send cake and substitute food if necessary."

Mom: "You're a fanatic!  I've raised a fanatic!"

Me: "Well, dietary restrictions are pretty normal across a variety of cultures and religions."

Mom: "But she'll be so SAD when she can't have BIRTHDAY CAKE!  You're depriving her of the normal joys of childhood!"

Me: "Well, if you look at these studies about how factory farmed animals are treated, it seems to me like something we really can't compromise on."

Mom: "But what will she eat at SNACKTIME at KINDERGARTEN?  She'll be completely left out!"

Me: "Yes, but we can't participate in the abuse of animals just so DD5 doesn't feel left out during snacktime."

Mom: "Why do you have to be so purist about everything?  Everyone does the wrong thing sometimes, it's natural.  You'll be hurting DD5 just for an idea."

 

ad nauseum

 

I think we might need a new cupcake thread.

 

But more on topic - to me as an objective listener, I think you are both posing a combination of feeling and rational arguments.

 

One thing I will say ... there is something to the idea that older people have wisdom from experience.  Part of that wisdom is having gone through many changes of mind, from being adamant about something to later wishing we had been a bit more relaxed about it.

[Katy]

As far as emotional responses, what I get is something more like this:

 

Me: "Mom, we're not eating factory farmed food anymore.  We've decided it's morally unacceptable for us, so we're going to avoid it at all times."

Mom: "But what will you do when DD5 goes to a birthday party?"

Me: "Well, we'll send cake and substitute food if necessary."

Mom: "You're a fanatic!  I've raised a fanatic!"

Me: "Well, dietary restrictions are pretty normal across a variety of cultures and religions."

Mom: "But she'll be so SAD when she can't have BIRTHDAY CAKE!  You're depriving her of the normal joys of childhood!"

Me: "Well, if you look at these studies about how factory farmed animals are treated, it seems to me like something we really can't compromise on."

Mom: "But what will she eat at SNACKTIME at KINDERGARTEN?  She'll be completely left out!"

Me: "Yes, but we can't participate in the abuse of animals just so DD5 doesn't feel left out during snacktime."

Mom: "Why do you have to be so purist about everything?  Everyone does the wrong thing sometimes, it's natural.  You'll be hurting DD5 just for an idea."

 

ad nauseum

 

 

This one in particular is very hard for me to square sometimes.  I do find it very hard to believe that conscientious, caring, "good" people believe and act differently than I do in some ways.    Sometimes I think that is a deficit in my own humility or ability to empathize, or that I might even (gasp) be wrong; other times I think, well, maybe virtually everyone else is just really deluded or really uncaring or something else I'm not seeing.

 

The vast majority of the time, I write it off as an unanswerable mystery of the universe, as confusing to me as what happens after you die.

 

We all have different values and morals.  You've made an ethical (basically religious, given that you want to convert other people to your point of view) choice.  Others, who have a limited amount of time, money, energy, and resources have vastly different priorities, which leads to a different set of moral choices.

 

Your mother values connection more than moralizing.  She knows that your daughter will be left out of many activities and experiences, and that will prevent her from having the same sorts of friendships that she might have if she didn't have artificial dietary restrictions.  The connection is more important to her than judging other people by refusing their food (and people do feel disconnected and judged when you won't share food with them - we have food allergies in this house and we cannot get around it so I know this personally).

 

Other people who have VERY similar feelings about factory farming make different choices.  Some grow all their food themselves like Buddhist monks. They realize that even organic factory farming or grains and vegetables leads to the deaths of millions of insects, and their strong non-violent morals do not exclude insects. They feel it is their duty to inspect each place they put their feet, and to turn over every leaf before they pick it to make sure insects are safe.

 

To some people the monks are extremists, and carrying this sort of logic out to its logical ends only makes them hungry, poor, and stuck in a monestary garden all day because it's extremely inefficient and bugs have very short lifespans anyway.  Others think that the monks do not go far enough and only being a fruitarian is an ethical choice.  Some are vegans.  Some spend the same time & energy that you spend cooking separate dishes lobbying to change the laws.  Some go undercover for PETA and take secret videos to get public outrage and change the laws.

 

Other people think animal cruelty is already illegal, if people are breaking the laws they'll be found out sooner or later, and other ethical issues are more important to them.  I have a friend who volunteers 20+ hours a week at a soup kitchen in Oklahoma, where it is much more difficult for adults to get food stamps than in other states.  So there are people going hungry, and my friend cares more about getting the people fed than about where the food came from.

 

Another friend is a doctor and volunteers many hours per week at a free clinic. She spends probably about the same amount of hours working on that that you spend on avoiding animal products.  She cares about health, so they eat a lot of chicken and fish and salad rather than red meat, but where the meat came from is not as important to her as extra time spent helping patients.

 

Another friend is a social worker who is also a single foster parent.  She takes her kids to get McDonald's for supper at least 3 times a week, and she doesn't feel guilty about it.  It makes them happy, and it makes it possible for her to work and parent and recruit and train new foster parents, which is desperately needed.

 

Another friend (a vet) hates factory farming too, but she's of the opinion that birds don't have much more sentience than bugs, so they request poultry or fish and avoid red meat unless they bought it themselves - grass fed and humanely slaughtered. Sometimes they buy a portion of a bison, hunted from a distance, and use that as their only source of red meat.

 

Others saved up, sold their big house, and moved to a very expensive hobby farm.  They waste thousands of dollars a year (gas to get out to the country daily, farm supplies and equipment, lost opportunities to work overtime) that they could use on their children's college tuition if they just stayed in town and bought food at the farmer's market, but they know their kids are learning the values of hard physical work and their food is all ethical. They know their children understand the heaviness that comes with killing an animal for food.  There is no disconnection from where the meat came from when they are wrapping it up in freezer paper.

 

None of the people who are making different choices than you are making less moral choices.  They are making the best choices they can for themselves and their goals with limited resources.

[Bluegoat]

My problem with both people in this conversation is that they each feel the need to convert the other to their way of thinking. No one should be engaged in this so long.  In all honesty, this is very adolescent behavior. A parent gets to decide what their house rules are for their kids in relation to voluntary dietary restrictions.  Like it or not, think it's crazy or rational, if you're not then parent, don't engage in trying to tell another parent what their kid should eat or why unless they asked you what you thought about it.  I don't agree with the parent's thinking here, but it's not.my.kid. so it wouldn't be my place to say anything about it if it hadn't been presented for discussion.

 

And why on earth would the parent of a child feel the need to convince someone other than the other parent of the child living in the home what those voluntary restrictions are?  Grown adults don't answer to their mommies about their own parenting decisions. It's like desperately trying to get approval for homeschooling.  Simply say, "This is how our family has decided to do things.  Pass the bean dip.  Do you have plans for summer/the holidays/ etc?" And if the other person keeps reengaging just reply, "I've said what I have to say on the topic.  There's no need to go on about it.  So let's talk about something else."  and if they continue in spite of that, hang up the phone, leave the location, ask them to leave, whatever. Don't engage.

 

Sheesh!  If people would just respect and enforce boundaries, nonsense like this would be reduced dramatically.  Unless someone is failing to provide adequate caloric intake for their kid, it's nobody else's business what kind of food is or isn't being consumed.  This whole conversation is like listening to middle schoolers squabble.

 

And for the parent making this decision, it's good to see the personal responsibility of sending a reasonable substitute rather than expecting someone else to feed your kid outside of their own norms.  I know people who don't and are endlessly bitter because everyone else isn't making it happen for their kid.

 

I don't know.  I don't actually think that healthy boundaries means this kind of discussion never happens.  In fact it sounds a little awful to me to think people would not talk about ideas that are important to them with people they are close to.   I think those can be the best people to talk to about things.  

 

Anyway - in a discussion that exists entirely to actually discuss whatever the issue is, I don't see how not trying to make a convincing case would be a good thing.

[Bluegoat]

I'm trying to explain what relativism is all about, and how it relates to the original post. I think that is one of the reasons why the OP is having a tough time figuring out what her friend is doing in her posts. Sometimes the friend is looking at the subjective truths of an issue from certain people's point of view and treating them as objective truth, whether there are facts to support them or not. 

 

And then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding completely what relativism is all about, and it has nothing to do with the OP. 

 

Ah - yes, I see where you are coming from here.

 

Yes, I think that is absolutely where the friend's friend is coming from.  In fact she keeps saying that the person advocating the controversial topic does so because she is "wired" that way, but we don't have to agree, we can be more empathetic and "wired" differently.  What she doesn't seem to see is that this absolutely contradicts her own position on this being true in some more objective way.

 

I'm to so sure about my friend - she's very big on objective reality in other contexts, but I think rather like what eternalsummer is saying, on some issues her feelings of personal relationship and also of belonging to the right group cause her a kind of dissonance - it seems to be very particularly intellectual or philosophical arguments on these issues that upset her, though she brings up the topics quite often.

[Bluegoat]

I'm out of likes about half-way up the page guys, but I'm reading everything.

[wintermom]

You can split hairs about the precision of language, and certainly arguments arise that way (when someone says something and the other person thinks they mean something more general or more specific or something else entirely),.

 

But a lack of precision in language doesn't change the truth of the shape of the earth.  when I say "Is the earth round or flat" you, as a native English speaking member of Western society, generally know what I mean.  If you say, well, it's flat from where I look from my house or, well, it isn't actually exactly spherical, I can clarify, and often arguments do need clarification and specific definition of terms.

 

It's not necessarily "splitting hairs" in the sense of trying to be annoying and simply taking a contrary position. Rather it's like what Rosie mentioned in a PP, it may be functionally better to look at the earth from one perspective and treat it as "flat" or "flat enough" so that engineers can design and build buildings. The earth being round is more important for those who design satellites to orbit the round earth. 

 

In both situations, there is truth about the earth being flat, or flat enough, and there is also truth in the earth being round. It's not opinion or precision of language. 

 

 

Physics is another field where truth needs to be approached in a more flexible manner in order to do some simple calculations. If a student were to try and calculate the acceleration of an object without ignoring all the various forces of friction they would be completely overwhelmed. So their final answer would be a number, with the notation that friction is ignored. In the classroom setting, you can functionally ignore friction, but try to do this in another setting and there would be consequences because many different friction forces do exist.

Edited January 26, 2018 by wintermom

[SKL]

I don't know.  I don't actually think that healthy boundaries means this kind of discussion never happens.  In fact it sounds a little awful to me to think people would not talk about ideas that are important to them with people they are close to.   I think those can be the best people to talk to about things.  

 

Anyway - in a discussion that exists entirely to actually discuss whatever the issue is, I don't see how not trying to make a convincing case would be a good thing.

 

It is fine as long as both parties have an out.

 

"I don't buy ___ any more and avoid eating it."

"Oh, may I ask why?"

"Well, I learned ___ and when I weighed that against __, I decided that for me, ___."

"Oh, that is interesting.  So what else is new with you?"

 

I would really rather not hurt feelings by refusing to let a friend offer me food.  However, I have done this a lot:

 

"Actually I'll pass on the __, but I would love some ___ if you have any."

 

Relationships are important enough that I would think long and hard before going all black and white on anything.

[Bluegoat]

It's not necessarily "splitting hairs" in the sense of trying to be annoying and simply taking a contrary position. Rather it's like what Rosie mentioned in a PP, it may be functionally better to look at the earth from one perspective and treat it as "flat" or "flat enough" so that engineers can design and build buildings. The earth being round is more important for those who design satellites to orbit the round earth. 

 

In both situations, there is truth about the earth being flat, or flat enough, and there is also truth in the earth being round. It's not opinion or precision of language. 

 

So - in this situation you would maybe say the person arguing for empathy thinks that empathy is just the best way to look at it.

 

I guess I am not sure how one could judge that though, without actually engaging with the other elements?  Because often there are consequences that are less immediate or obvious, or are more complex to understand.

[Bluegoat]

It is fine as long as both parties have an out.

 

"I don't buy ___ any more and avoid eating it."

"Oh, may I ask why?"

"Well, I learned ___ and when I weighed that against __, I decided that for me, ___."

"Oh, that is interesting.  So what else is new with you?"

 

I would really rather not hurt feelings by refusing to let a friend offer me food.  However, I have done this a lot:

 

"Actually I'll pass on the __, but I would love some ___ if you have any."

 

Relationships are important enough that I would think long and hard before going all black and white on anything.

\Sure, and sometimes it becomes clear there is not much point in bringing a topic up any more, unless you really have something new to say, or at all if it always becomes too heated.

 

I have a family that general likes to hash the stuff out.  Dh used to find it shocking - the first time I went to meet his family, I thought something was wrong because no one said anything it seemed possible to actually converse about, to my way of thinking.  I figured they must be unhappy about something going on.

[Paige]

Yes. I can't stand the term "my truth" or "your truth" - there is objective fact and there is subjective perception. Real truth is incredibly elusive, just ask any philosopher. Don't profane truth by making it subjective and common.

 

Since in some areas we may be unable to prove what's true or untrue, whether it's true or not does not matter to the individual. If you believe it to be true, and act as if it is true, then it is true for you. Someone may believe the opposite and it is true for them. Our perceptions create truth. I believe what I perceive to be blue to be blue. You would probably agree with me and we can live as if the color blue is real. For some people from other cultures, there is no color blue- just shades of green. We could talk about blue and try to convince them that it's real all day but it would not be real to them. Neither of us would be wrong or right, but rather we are experiencing different truths based on our perceptions of reality. And blueness is not even as subjective as some areas of thought such as "does prayer work?"

 

I think perhaps the original OP's friend is categorizing some things into subjective truth that the OP would categorize as objective truths. 

 

I personally find "super feelers" exhausting. My MIL is one of these and I can't imagine how it must be to get all emotionally worked up about everything! I got no time for that. Sometimes I think it's an excuse to be dumb or avoid responsibility. She'll want something she can't afford, for example, and say she doesn't care about the consequences because "feels." And she's proud about choosing the feels even though other people and she will have to pay in various ways later for her indulgence of feelings. 

[SKL]

\Sure, and sometimes it becomes clear there is not much point in bringing a topic up any more, unless you really have something new to say, or at all if it always becomes too heated.

 

I have a family that general likes to hash the stuff out.  Dh used to find it shocking - the first time I went to meet his family, I thought something was wrong because no one said anything it seemed possible to actually converse about, to my way of thinking.  I figured they must be unhappy about something going on.

 

Yeah, my family is also not shy about controversial discussions, and it can get quite loud, but everyone is having a good time.  Except for visitors / newcomers, who wonder if we're about to go burn down the White House or something.  :P  One of my SILs would sit in shock and once even cried about the vehemence of opinion.  It took moving away to realize how our family is different from the norm.  :P  Now I myself have a hard time with all the hubbub.

[unsinkable]

Sorry no, got locked, and you know the expression about bygones !

So bring up the thread, and comment about (and specifically name) a particular poster's interaction, then when someone asks which thread, this is the response? It is a little late to "let bygones be bygones."

 

It was locked, not deleted.

 

It is a few pages away.

 

I thought it was a valuable thread, particularly about defining terms, and how it is necessary to do that in complex discussions.

[wintermom]

So - in this situation you would maybe say the person arguing for empathy thinks that empathy is just the best way to look at it.

 

I guess I am not sure how one could judge that though, without actually engaging with the other elements?  Because often there are consequences that are less immediate or obvious, or are more complex to understand.

 

Who is this person empathizing with? Is she treating everyone's "potential" feelings and experiences to the same degree? How does she even know everyone's experiences and feelings?  And if she has read about someone's experience, how is this playing out in her daily life? Does she act on these feelings of empathy for the chosen person/group of the day and then want/expect others to do the same? Or is she just throwing ideas out there on fb and hoping everyone will click on "like?" 

 

If this person was trying to influence my behaviour, I would put more thought into it. If they just wanted me to agree with them, it would depend on whether I felt like putting any serious thought into the matter and whether I wanted to get into a debate with this person. The easiest route would to simply say, "That's interesting."

Edited January 26, 2018 by wintermom

[Targhee]

Since in some areas we may be unable to prove what's true or untrue, whether it's true or not does not matter to the individual. If you believe it to be true, and act as if it is true, then it is true for you. Someone may believe the opposite and it is true for them. Our perceptions create truth. I believe what I perceive to be blue to be blue. You would probably agree with me and we can live as if the color blue is real. For some people from other cultures, there is no color blue- just shades of green. We could talk about blue and try to convince them that it's real all day but it would not be real to them. Neither of us would be wrong or right, but rather we are experiencing different truths based on our perceptions of reality. And blueness is not even as subjective as some areas of thought such as "does prayer work?"

 

I think perhaps the original OP's friend is categorizing some things into subjective truth that the OP would categorize as objective truths.

 

I personally find "super feelers" exhausting. My MIL is one of these and I can't imagine how it must be to get all emotionally worked up about everything! I got no time for that. Sometimes I think it's an excuse to be dumb or avoid responsibility. She'll want something she can't afford, for example, and say she doesn't care about the consequences because "feels." And she's proud about choosing the feels even though other people and she will have to pay in various ways later for her indulgence of feelings.

I do not agree with the bolder. That is why I said real truth is elusive. The perception of color example is an example of subjective perception. Even in my own home my dd and I are at an impass as to what to call the color of a certain card in a board game (pink or purple). While I maintain it is purple I do not think this is TRUTH. And thankfully even dd can handle the disagreement with grace because in the grand scheme it is of little consequence and subjective, therefore not worth the argument. Real, objective, absolute truths are rarely known. Things like "Is there a God" - while what I believe to be true informs my behavior and other ideas I cannot say to you "it is true," but rather "I believe this to be true," or "my experiences and understanding is consistent with this being true, and here is X, Y, and Z evidences/rationales for why I believe." Whether God exists isn't "my truth" - God exists or does not exist, and whichever is the case is the actual truth of the matter. It is not subjective. I am not well versed enough in epistemology, nor articulate enough, to continue down my line of thought. But sufficed to say, we function daily on inference and belief, and increasingly use the word TRUTH as something it is not. While it may seem innocuous, using the term truth in increasingly subjective ways not only distracts from determining real Truth but it conflates, in the minds of those who claim a personal truth, the pursuit of objective Truth with personal attack on the individual who has a different belief.

 

ETA: I also find "super feelers" exhausting. And, back to the original point, I do not think that reasoned discussion is always possible with them. My MIL is one who says "I can't tell you why or how I know it's true, but I know it's true." Ok. So if you can't tell us why or how then we cannot also know that it is true or that you are right (I'm think about DeCartes' evil demon proposition).

Edited January 26, 2018 by Targhee

[Bluegoat]

Who is this person empathizing with? Is she treating everyone's "potential" feelings and experiences to the same degree? How does she even know everyone's experiences and feelings?  And if she has read about someone's experience, how is this playing out in her daily life? Does she act on these feelings of empathy for the chosen person/group of the day and then want/expect others to do the same? Or is she just throwing ideas out there on fb and hoping everyone will click on "like?" 

 

If this person was trying to influence my behaviour, I would put more thought into it. If they just wanted me to agree with them, it would depend on whether I felt like putting any serious thought into the matter and whether I wanted to get into a debate with this person. The easiest route would to simply say, "That's interesting."

 

I would say that she is empathizing with a particular set of experiences, or what she thinks those are.

 

I think my friend actually really struggles with a lot of these questions and is interested to hear other viewpoints.  I also think she finds it stressful when her feelings of empathy don't seem to fit with certain ideas in a clear way - 

 

which actually, as I am writing it, reminds me a lot of another person I know, and what I think they share is that they are both actually quite neurotic.  Maybe that is the real source of the issue.

 

Anyway - I'd actually like to discuss it with her but I find these other people who get involved rather difficult to deal with.

[wintermom]

I would say that she is empathizing with a particular set of experiences, or what she thinks those are.

 

I think my friend actually really struggles with a lot of these questions and is interested to hear other viewpoints.  I also think she finds it stressful when her feelings of empathy don't seem to fit with certain ideas in a clear way - 

 

which actually, as I am writing it, reminds me a lot of another person I know, and what I think they share is that they are both actually quite neurotic.  Maybe that is the real source of the issue.

 

Anyway - I'd actually like to discuss it with her but I find these other people who get involved rather difficult to deal with.

 

I would not have any patience for these kinds of discussions.  I'd definitely need more practical plan of action type discussion than simply musing about how I think others feel. 

[Bluegoat]

I would not have any patience for these kinds of discussions.  I'd definitely need more practical plan of action type discussion than simply musing about how I think others feel. 

 

I think perhaps the problem there is that what people think should be done will depend on how much weight they are giving to the empathetic elements.  Those who think that is the main or only consideration want to take one approach.  Others who are apparently lacking in empathy worry that this will actually not work out as planned, or some people even think it will really backfire.

[poppy]

So bring up the thread, and comment about (and specifically name) a particular poster's interaction, then when someone asks which thread, this is the response? It is a little late to "let bygones be bygones."

 

It was locked, not deleted.

 

It is a few pages away.

 

I thought it was a valuable thread, particularly about defining terms, and how it is necessary to do that in complex discussions.

 

Everything is super easy to find on the internet.   I just didn't link it because I didn't want to  be rude. Honestly , I shouldn't have said anything.  It just made me chuckle to read the OP. Not in a mean way.   Just it's funny how well you get to know certain voices and styles online.

[Bluegoat]

Empathy is also a gendered expectation; it doesn't surprise me your friend is a woman. Really, by challenging her to leave 'empathy' behind for the period of the conversation, and consider an argument on its merits, you are asking her to break a social taboo. 

 

Perhaps the kind of conversations you are looking for can only be had with those who haven't been socialized to do empathy all the time.

 

Well, that's an interesting thought.  I will say, the discussion was two women who were arguing on the empathy side, vs two men who were not empathetic enough (plus me.)

[Catwoman]

My mom and I were living 1 mile apart at the time, and we came over pretty frequently (I'd say 3-4x a week, minimum).  It was in fact necessary to explain to her why we couldn't eat this or that thing at her house anymore.

 

I think when you're pretty close to someone - that is, you spend many hours a week with them and have for years, and they are your parents - it's pretty normal to explain or discuss major life changes.

 

That said, we had that conversation once in that way.  After that it has largely been like this:

 

Mom: "Hey, I can take DD7 to the birthday party if you're too busy this weekend."

Me: "Great!  Remember, she can't eat the cake.  I'll send a substitute."

Mom: "Ugh, that will be so hard for her!  I wish you'd reconsider."

Me: "Sorry Mom, we can't reconsider.  It starts at 3pm and I'll have a present ready."

 

(after event)

Mom: "I have to tell you, I let DD7 eat the cake.  I didn't want to make a fuss in front of the other parents."

Me: [radio silence].

 

and that is the last time she took DD7 to a party.

 

Occasionally after that she'd bring it up and at first I'd say well, Mom, look at this video or here's this explanation or whatever. But pretty soon we both realized, I think, that the other person wasn't going to change her mind.

 

Eventually it tailed off and now we do not ever speak about it ever and she is actually super respectful.

 

But I think both her response and my frustration with her response were pretty normal.  As I said, I respond that way sometimes to really challenging ideas or beliefs my DH has.  I don't care if people on the internet think X about Y, but DH thinking X about Y throws me for a loop and my first response is not rational thought but my emotional reaction: "You can't think that!  How are we even married?! I married a [insert derogatory and often inaccurate slur here, similar to "racist" or "bigot" or whatever suits]! (tears)"

 

Now, reacting that way to people in whom you don't have a personal emotional investment strikes me as weird.  But maybe that's just because those people are more feeling types than I am - similarly, especially when I was younger, things like national tragedies on TV didn't affect me (or most of my friends) the way adults seemed to want them to.  9/11 in particular did not bring me to tears; I didn't know any of those people.

I couldn’t quote HomeschoolMom in AZ because she responded within a quote so it didn’t show up when I tried to respond, but after reading your posts about your conversations with your mom, I totally disagree with HomeschoolMom when she said that your relationship with your mom is somehow abnormal, and that you shouldn’t have open and/or repeated discussions about things like this. I don’t understand why she is advocating such a hard-line approach with your own mom, because it sounds like you and your mom are quite close. Why shouldn’t she be able to offer advice or let you know that she objects to something you’re doing? And why shouldn’t you be able to explain why you choose to do things differently than she would prefer? Neither of you is overstepping any boundaries, except for the time when she let your dd eat the birthday cake, because neither you nor your mom is doing anything but discussing an issue. No threats. No blackmail. No nastiness.

 

People discuss things when they’re in healthy relationships. They don’t dismiss each other’s opinions, and they don’t force their opinions on each other. It sounds to me like you and your mom are doing just fine. You don’t agree on everything, but who agrees with anyone on every single thing? And you are standing your ground without damaging your relationship with your mom, so I don’t see a problem here.

 

I really respect the way you’re working through a disagreement in principle with your mom — and I say this as someone who would probably be on your mom’s side of the issue at hand, so this is a sincere compliment to you. :)

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't know.  I don't actually think that healthy boundaries means this kind of discussion never happens.  In fact it sounds a little awful to me to think people would not talk about ideas that are important to them with people they are close to.   I think those can be the best people to talk to about things.  

 

Anyway - in a discussion that exists entirely to actually discuss whatever the issue is, I don't see how not trying to make a convincing case would be a good thing.

It's the nature of the conversation that shouldn't have happened, not the basic content itself.

 

The failure is not recognizing that she's engaged with someone who isn't interested in her answers. So many people can't read that situation accurately.   When someone asks, "Why are you __________ " and continues on without a break with a reason why it's a problem, then she should understand that person doesn't actually want to know.  The why is a springboard to launch into why that person already thinks the person is wrong.  When someone ACTUALLY wants to know why so they can genuinely consider the other person's point of view, there's silence after the why.  Homeschoolers fall into this trap all the time.  A sincere person wanting to know why you homeschool just asks why you homeschool and stops talking so they can hear your answer instead of launching into all the problems they see with homeschooling. 

 

So the way a conversation like that should happen with healthy boundaries is more like:

 

Parent: Mom, we aren't eating any food others prepare.

Grandparent: Why is that?

Parent: We have moral convictions about not participating in consuming food sourced from abused animals.

Grandparent: How will you handle social situations with food?

Parent: We'll send our own food.

 

That's how adults should respectfully handle that kind of conversation.  Neither person needs to persuade the other unless the other is specifically asking respectfully about how they came to those conclusions. 

 

[Catwoman]

It's the nature of the conversation that shouldn't have happened, not the basic content itself.

 

The failure is not recognizing that she's engaged with someone who isn't interested in her answers. So many people can't read that situation accurately. When someone asks, "Why are you __________ " and continues on without a break with a reason why it's a problem, then she should understand that person doesn't actually want to know. The why is a springboard to launch into why that person already thinks the person is wrong. When someone ACTUALLY wants to know why so they can genuinely consider the other person's point of view, there's silence after the why. Homeschoolers fall into this trap all the time. A sincere person wanting to know why you homeschool just asks why you homeschool and stops talking so they can hear your answer instead of launching into all the problems they see with homeschooling.

 

So the way a conversation like that should happen with healthy boundaries is more like:

 

Parent: Mom, we aren't eating any food others prepare.

Grandparent: Why is that?

Parent: We have moral convictions about not participating in consuming food sourced from abused animals.

Grandparent: How will you handle social situations with food?

Parent: We'll send our own food.

 

That's how adults should respectfully handle that kind of conversation. Neither person needs to persuade the other unless the other is specifically asking respectfully about how they came to those conclusions.

 

But why shouldn’t people ever try to persuade each other?

 

I don’t understand why a mother and daughter shouldn’t have some back-and-forth conversations about issues they both consider to be important.

 

I don’t think a lack of “healthy boundaries†are an issue in eternalsummer’s examples.

 

Honestly, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to “how adults should respectfully handle that kind of conversation.†What is right for you may be entirely different from what is right in other people’s relationships, and what’s right for eternalsummer in her relationship with her mom may be entirely different from what is right in eternalsummer’s relationships with other people in her life.