Post your asides here

[Parasaurolophus]

Generally speaking, I don't think it's worth trying to cultivate relationships with people not interested in reciprocating. You deserve higher-quality engagement than they're able or willing to provide.

[smallcleanrat]

Generally speaking, I don't think it's worth trying to cultivate relationships with people not interested in reciprocating. You deserve higher-quality engagement than they're able or willing to provide.

I guess I'm more interested in cultivating good communication techniques more than specific relationships.

I have a personal and a professional interest in promoting a better understanding of brain-behavior connections (for the sake of the science and for the sake of the social aspects, like reducing stigma and simplistic moral judgments).

I hesitated to mention social aspects before because I didn't want to invoke assumptions that I was trying to justify throwing away accountability and standards. But that happened anyway, so...



As one small example:

I've had a lot of encounters with people who refuse to believe even that children have real limitations in their ability to reason or regulate their emotions or plan ahead. Everything comes down to choice and willpower and a child who "refuses" to stop crying or get straight A's or whatever is simply being defiant or lazy or manipulative. It honestly doesn't seem to occur to them that a kid might not know how to comply, and that a more effective solution might be to help them develop skills rather than shaming or punishing.

And the pushback is very similar: "oh, so kids should be allowed to do whatever they want? Let's just throw away all discipline and values and raise a generation of spoiled brats?"

Of course not. Discipline is necessary, just not always the most effective response. It's the hammer-nail problem.

There is this all-or-nothing thinking that is difficult to get through.

It still seems really important to try.

[marshwiggle]

Many people don't listen to understand, they listen to respond (and they usually listen poorly).

It gets confusing.

I don't know if it's to make fun of me or if that's really what they think I am saying.

Though there are a lot of people who assume any discussion of the link between biology and behavior is the same as saying no one is responsible for anything they do and should never be held accountable.

There are people who try to make arguments like this, but such arguments are not necessarily implied by the biology.

I guess some people interpret statements about brain development or learning disabilities or mental illness as a precursor to a list of demands.

I don't know why that is-ought separation is so difficult for some people, but it seems important to figure out how to communicate it.

If an out-and-out disclaimer does nothing, is it hopeless?

I was thinking of how to respond to this, and then:

I've had a lot of encounters with people who refuse to believe even that children have real limitations in their ability to reason or regulate their emotions or plan ahead. Everything comes down to choice and willpower and a child who "refuses" to stop crying or get straight A's or whatever is simply being defiant or lazy or manipulative. It honestly doesn't seem to occur to them that a kid might not know how to comply, and that a more effective solution might be to help them develop skills rather than shaming or punishing.

And the pushback is very similar: "oh, so kids should be allowed to do whatever they want? Let's just throw away all discipline and values and raise a generation of spoiled brats?"

Of course not. Discipline is necessary, just not always the most effective response. It's the hammer-nail problem.

There is this all-or-nothing thinking that is difficult to get through.

It still seems really important to try.

It's not clear how this avoids the all-or-nothing thinking; at least in the context of the best solution in a specific circumstance. Saying that discipline is not the most effective response in some situation is pretty definitive. As is saying that discipline is the most effective response in a different situation.

If one wants to get beyond all-or-nothing thinking, then it seems that the best way may be rather to list the pros and cons of various approaches, since any approach is going to have at least some advantages and some disadvantages.

[smallcleanrat]

It's not clear how this avoids the all-or-nothing thinking; at least in the context of the best solution in a specific circumstance. Saying that discipline is not the most effective response in some situation is pretty definitive. As is saying that discipline is the most effective response in a different situation.

If one wants to get beyond all-or-nothing thinking, then it seems that the best way may be rather to list the pros and cons of various approaches, since any approach is going to have at least some advantages and some disadvantages.

It's not meant to be definitive, but I do appreciate you explaining how you interpret what I wrote so I can address it.

I'll try to articulate my point better.

I mean exactly what you say in your last sentence. Depending on the specifics of any given situation, there will be pros and cons of various approaches.

I was trying to say that treating every problem as a disciplinary problem has the potential to lead to situations in which discipline is applied inappropriately, because 'lack of discipline' is not the cause of every problem, and there exist problems for which discipline is not the most effective solution (this will depend on the specific circumstances).

Does this still come across as all-or-nothing?

How could I have said this more clearly?

[marshwiggle]

It's not clear how this avoids the all-or-nothing thinking; at least in the context of the best solution in a specific circumstance. Saying that discipline is not the most effective response in some situation is pretty definitive. As is saying that discipline is the most effective response in a different situation.

If one wants to get beyond all-or-nothing thinking, then it seems that the best way may be rather to list the pros and cons of various approaches, since any approach is going to have at least some advantages and some disadvantages.

It's not meant to be definitive, but I do appreciate you explaining how you interpret what I wrote so I can address it.

I'll try to articulate my point better.

I mean exactly what you say in your last sentence. Depending on the specifics of any given situation, there will be pros and cons of various approaches.

I was trying to say that treating every problem as a disciplinary problem has the potential to lead to situations in which discipline is applied inappropriately, because 'lack of discipline' is not the cause of every problem, and there exist problems for which discipline is not the most effective solution (this will depend on the specific circumstances).

Does this still come across as all-or-nothing?

How could I have said this more clearly?

I'm not trying to be snarky here; I really appreciate the way you try to be very "academic" in your discussion of things. Having said that, I think part of what you perceive as "all-or-nothing" thinking from other people is just that the absence of nuance is implicitly rejected by all but the most extreme people. So, for this example, how many people on here are likely to believe that discipline is the solution in EVERY situation? (I don't know of any conservative who lets two-year-olds play with knives; EVERYONE knows that there are limits to what discipline can achieve. On the other hand, most liberals think that it's wrong to restrict many choices that young people have, such as those involving substances or sexual activity DESPITE their real concern for protecting people from harm. So EVERYONE knows that people have to make some decisions for themselves, regardless of the possible negative consequences.)

The real question which informed people want to discuss is where to draw the line.

To put it another way, if brain development results in young people committing more crimes, causing more unwanted pregnancies, etc. (all of which are statistically established), in what ways should their environment (including things like house rules,etc.) be controlled to prevent their options for bad decisions, and to what extent should they be counselled, taught, etc. to self-regulate?
I think you'd find virtually no-one arguing against either of those completely.

"All-or-nothing" was never on the table in the first place for all but the most extreme.

[mamselle]

@ SCR: There is nothing wrong with the wording, phrasing, or referencing of information in your statements, in terms of output.

But part of communication is not only hearing what is being said, but what is not being said.

What you seem to be missing is that, at times, other individuals have no interest in taking in new information or being made to look closely at their assumptions in order to grow in their ability to analyze issues or face the potential need to change their opinions based on recently-discovered facts.

That's a subtextual communication that is conveyed whenever they come back with nonsensical responses that take nothing of what's been said before in the way it was (very clearly) intended, and persist in 'misunderstanding,' cherry-picking, or just plain ignoring the well-put communication.

In those cases, the 'return communication' is, basically, "La-la-la-I don't heaaaaar you!" and you're better off giving up.

Because they don't want to hear you, are not communicating in good faith, and are taking advantage of your good will in continuing the exchange--they take the replies as ego strokes.

It's taken forty years, for example, for my siblings to realize that, in addition to being in need of long-term care, which I can and do respect, our other brother is manipulative and whiny, and tries to use them all the time. We finally, just over this weekend, had the kind of conversation that was needed when they all got angry at me for pointing out these obvious issues, all those decades ago, deciding I, not he, was the "problem," for pointing it out, and cutting me out of large parts of the family's conversations overall.

So I've had more practice in recognizing the signs, and in knowing that you can only wait it out, the other person isn't going to change until they think they can get something from it, and as long as anyone else keeps trying to mollify, placate, or correct them, that exchange sequence feeds their ego, so they won't.

Let it go.

It's not you, it's them.

M.

[smallcleanrat]

I'm not trying to be snarky here; I really appreciate the way you try to be very "academic" in your discussion of things. Having said that, I think part of what you perceive as "all-or-nothing" thinking from other people is just that the absence of nuance is implicitly rejected by all but the most extreme people. So, for this example, how many people on here are likely to believe that discipline is the solution in EVERY situation? (I don't know of any conservative who lets two-year-olds play with knives; EVERYONE knows that there are limits to what discipline can achieve. On the other hand, most liberals think that it's wrong to restrict many choices that young people have, such as those involving substances or sexual activity DESPITE their real concern for protecting people from harm. So EVERYONE knows that people have to make some decisions for themselves, regardless of the possible negative consequences.)

Perhaps I should have clarified that the example RE: discipline and children is not based off of interactions with people on these fora.

My own mom likes to brag that she never 'coddled' me by putting chemicals or sharp things out of reach when I was a toddler...

The real question which informed people want to discuss is where to draw the line.

I generally believe people when they say this is what they want, but there are times when this is not consistent with the things they are saying.

To put it another way, if brain development results in young people committing more crimes, causing more unwanted pregnancies, etc. (all of which are statistically established), in what ways should their environment (including things like house rules,etc.) be controlled to prevent their options for bad decisions, and to what extent should they be counselled, taught, etc. to self-regulate?
I think you'd find virtually no-one arguing against either of those completely.

Which is why I didn't know what to make of you saying you were sick of hearing brain development being used as an excuse for "everything" in response to my posts.

Especially after I included explicit statements that even if there is a biological factor involved, the student is the one responsible for managing it and for meeting their responsibilities.

A lot of the studies related to adolescents and sleep do discuss solutions like student services running educational awareness programs to help young people learn to do just that. There isn't a universal push to make everything the problem of the professors.

So it is unwarranted to assume that mentioning the evidence for a biological component to sleep regulation automatically implies the idea that students should not be responsible for their own lives.

@ SCR: There is nothing wrong with the wording, phrasing, or referencing of information in your statements, in terms of output.

But part of communication is not only hearing what is being said, but what is not being said.

What you seem to be missing is that, at times, other individuals have no interest in taking in new information or being made to look closely at their assumptions in order to grow in their ability to analyze issues or face the potential need to change their opinions based on recently-discovered facts.

[...]

mamselle, I see the wisdom in your message here, and I suppose it's the "at times" bit I still struggle with.

I've had experiences with 'la-la-la-don't hear you' exchanges in which asking for clarification of the other person's perspective or taking another approach to communicating my point did lead somewhere. And I've had experiences in which it didn't.

Often I've had both types of experiences with the same individual, and I think this is when it gets particularly difficult for me.

[marshwiggle]

To put it another way, if brain development results in young people committing more crimes, causing more unwanted pregnancies, etc. (all of which are statistically established), in what ways should their environment (including things like house rules,etc.) be controlled to prevent their options for bad decisions, and to what extent should they be counselled, taught, etc. to self-regulate?
I think you'd find virtually no-one arguing against either of those completely.

Which is why I didn't know what to make of you saying you were sick of hearing brain development being used as an excuse for "everything" in response to my posts.

You're right. The fact that I used a universal statement undermines my point about avoiding all-or-nothing statements. What I could say that would be more accurate is that, other than your mention of having specific training to help young people learn to cope with the consequences of ongoing brain development, (which I think is a great idea, like study skills, etc.),  I can't immediately recall anyone raising the brain development issues as important if they were not essentially implying some sort of accommodation was in order.

In other words, virtually every argument I have heard has been, "Suck it up" or "Poor baby!"
A measured, rational approach to issues people face which admits the problem is both real, but still something which they themselves must learn to handle, is rare in our popular culture.

[mahagonny]

Perhaps he's taking the discrimination with humor, like an obedient white boy does.

[ergative]

I think Russia the state is doing a Bad Thing, but even with that in mind I don't think it's appropriate to start invoking ethnic slurs to refer to Russians.

[mahagonny]

I think Russia the state is doing a Bad Thing, but even with that in mind I don't think it's appropriate to start invoking ethnic slurs to refer to Russians.

If you're old enough like me you remember when President Reagan was skewered by the press for visiting Bitburg to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII. Of the 2,000 buried there 49 were members of the Waffen-SS, and Reagan defended himself by stating that they were victims of the Third Reich too.

[aside]

I think Russia the state is doing a Bad Thing, but even with that in mind I don't think it's appropriate to start invoking ethnic slurs to refer to Russians.

Yes, especially given the thousands of Russians known to be protesting the Bad Thing, some of whom have been arrested for doing so.

[ergative]

I think Russia the state is doing a Bad Thing, but even with that in mind I don't think it's appropriate to start invoking ethnic slurs to refer to Russians.

Yes, especially given the thousands of Russians known to be protesting the Bad Thing, some of whom have been arrested for doing so.

Yeah, f'rreal.

[paultuttle]

@ SCR: There is nothing wrong with the wording, phrasing, or referencing of information in your statements, in terms of output.

But part of communication is not only hearing what is being said, but what is not being said.

What you seem to be missing is that, at times, other individuals have no interest in taking in new information or being made to look closely at their assumptions in order to grow in their ability to analyze issues or face the potential need to change their opinions based on recently-discovered facts.

That's a subtextual communication that is conveyed whenever they come back with nonsensical responses that take nothing of what's been said before in the way it was (very clearly) intended, and persist in 'misunderstanding,' cherry-picking, or just plain ignoring the well-put communication.

In those cases, the 'return communication' is, basically, "La-la-la-I don't heaaaaar you!" and you're better off giving up.

Because they don't want to hear you, are not communicating in good faith, and are taking advantage of your good will in continuing the exchange--they take the replies as ego strokes.

It's taken forty years, for example, for my siblings to realize that, in addition to being in need of long-term care, which I can and do respect, our other brother is manipulative and whiny, and tries to use them all the time. We finally, just over this weekend, had the kind of conversation that was needed when they all got angry at me for pointing out these obvious issues, all those decades ago, deciding I, not he, was the "problem," for pointing it out, and cutting me out of large parts of the family's conversations overall.

So I've had more practice in recognizing the signs, and in knowing that you can only wait it out, the other person isn't going to change until they think they can get something from it, and as long as anyone else keeps trying to mollify, placate, or correct them, that exchange sequence feeds their ego, so they won't.

Let it go.

It's not you, it's them.

M.

Thank you for making these points publicly here.

These are helpful reminders of how some people act, along with ways to handle those actions.

[mahagonny]

Interesting news story:

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/riots-at-ugliest-man-competition-after-handsome-winner-defeats-favourite-for-title-34223475.html