(I’m definitely speculating here, as I can’t reliably identify the source of the conflict.)
The violent takeover or switches aren’t themselves a problem, but rather the background suffering each side produces when it is not in control.
even if the side that is in control is pursuing the goals of both sides
And exactly that I can’t manage to do. Say, if I let each side plan the next 12 hours, I would get back “play video games, 12 hours” and “study / read about these topics, 1 hour each”. Now, there’s no direct conflict, so I should be able to split it, say “6 hours each”, or any other fraction. But that simply doesn’t work, as I will get direct negative feedback the moment I start and once the background suffering gets too big, I switch / get apathetic. This ruins both activities.
But whenever I notice that, it’s obvious to me that this is totally bullshit and getting any split would be so much better, which both sides seem to fully agree with, but once one side is in power, it forgets / ignores (dunno which) the whole deal and acts just as stupid as before. (I’m totally aware who inane this is and fascinated that I can notice it, but not stop myself from doing it.)
It sounds like you’re describing two problems: Both sides renege on compromises, and neither side will tolerate ceding control as part of a compromise.
If I were modeling your sides as two different people, I’d say their behavior is understandable because they have a history of noncooperation. If I were tasked with mediating between two people who don’t trust each other, I’d start with very low-stakes exercises.
A practitioner of IFS has told me that when they make a long-term plan that requires a subagent to sit dormant for a long while, they have to periodically perform small favors or gestures for the subagent in order to maintain the subagent’s trust.
So: Though your experience sounds different from mine, it sounds like at least one of your problems is the familiar problem of your selves not trusting each other.
If I were tasked with mediating between two people who don’t trust each other, I’d start with very low-stakes exercises.
I have previously attempted “small” deals, say planning ~1 hour/day and leaving the rest unmodified. I will try even smaller stakes, on the scale of minutes.
One problem is that I’m very well aware that this is a trap. I know that if I get working deals, I would immediately start escalating them. Hm, you might be unto something with regard to trust issues.
(I’m definitely speculating here, as I can’t reliably identify the source of the conflict.)
The violent takeover or switches aren’t themselves a problem, but rather the background suffering each side produces when it is not in control.
And exactly that I can’t manage to do. Say, if I let each side plan the next 12 hours, I would get back “play video games, 12 hours” and “study / read about these topics, 1 hour each”. Now, there’s no direct conflict, so I should be able to split it, say “6 hours each”, or any other fraction. But that simply doesn’t work, as I will get direct negative feedback the moment I start and once the background suffering gets too big, I switch / get apathetic. This ruins both activities.
But whenever I notice that, it’s obvious to me that this is totally bullshit and getting any split would be so much better, which both sides seem to fully agree with, but once one side is in power, it forgets / ignores (dunno which) the whole deal and acts just as stupid as before. (I’m totally aware who inane this is and fascinated that I can notice it, but not stop myself from doing it.)
It sounds like you’re describing two problems: Both sides renege on compromises, and neither side will tolerate ceding control as part of a compromise.
Do both sides have both of these problems?
As far as I can tell, yes.
If I were modeling your sides as two different people, I’d say their behavior is understandable because they have a history of noncooperation. If I were tasked with mediating between two people who don’t trust each other, I’d start with very low-stakes exercises.
A practitioner of IFS has told me that when they make a long-term plan that requires a subagent to sit dormant for a long while, they have to periodically perform small favors or gestures for the subagent in order to maintain the subagent’s trust.
So: Though your experience sounds different from mine, it sounds like at least one of your problems is the familiar problem of your selves not trusting each other.
I have previously attempted “small” deals, say planning ~1 hour/day and leaving the rest unmodified. I will try even smaller stakes, on the scale of minutes.
One problem is that I’m very well aware that this is a trap. I know that if I get working deals, I would immediately start escalating them. Hm, you might be unto something with regard to trust issues.