Thanks for the comment! This was my first post on lesswrong so I have been nervous. Thank you so much for the read and feedback!
This is almost entirely theoretical. I can’t pretend these are tried and true. I have been doing something like this for 6 months with awesome success but I don’t have a lot of conflict.
I see your point and agree. Maybe I was being dramatic. Maybe I should change “loss of friendship” to something like, “unresolved relationship tension”?
Is this IFS you are talking about? I just heard it for the first time last week and then a couple more times this week. I really need to learn what it is. Considering I didn’t know about IFS when I wrote this, any parallel or usages would be entirely accidental.
I too am uncomfortable with the power Hurt has. These rules are a bit unfair because I didn’t write these rules to be the “best way to resolve conflict” I wrote them to be the “best way to resolve conflict while not getting taken advantage of”.
So I think you are right, sometimes a person can have misguided emotional responses and the BEST thing to do would be to try to discuss those emotions and have them see how they could avoid the inappropriate response in the future. The problem with this is that talking someone out of their emotions or trying to change their emotional response is exactly how bad actors manipulate and abuse others. So under the constraints I set up, this can’t be allowed.
What if I added a part in the conclusion that states this is not the ideal rules for conflict resolution if you are willing to accept the risk of being manipulated. These are only the rules if you want to completely avoid the possibility of being manipulated, and are willing to accept the tradeoffs? Do you think that would square the vibes?
1. At least add say you’ve being doing something like this in the post for 6 months with awesome succees. A bigger ask would be providing more detail on what you mean by “awesome success” would be helpful. Give us a reason to believe this works.
2.
I see your point and agree. Maybe I was being dramatic. Maybe I should change “loss of friendship” to something like, “unresolved relationship tension”?
[...]
What if I added a part in the conclusion that states this is not the ideal rules for conflict resolution if you are willing to accept the risk of being manipulated. These are only the rules if you want to completely avoid the possibility of being manipulated, and are willing to accept the tradeoffs? Do you think that would square the vibes?
Making the changes to “loss of friendship”, along with adding your reasoning behind the rules in the conclusion would imrpve the post IMO.
3. When I considered tweaking this to be an internal therapy tool, I thought it would be similair to IFS. It is somewhat well known on LW. Kaj Sotala’s mutli-agent models of the mind sequence has a good exposition on the topic. There are probably better expositions, but that’s where I learned of it. There’s also a good discussion on the value of IFS and why rats like it here.
Your comments made it clear when this technique is valuable, so thanks. With some luck, I might try it out.
Thank you. I’m going to work on the edits. Also thank you for the link, I am going to read up on IFS before finals edits to see if I can see this with new eyes.
Thanks for the comment! This was my first post on lesswrong so I have been nervous. Thank you so much for the read and feedback!
This is almost entirely theoretical. I can’t pretend these are tried and true. I have been doing something like this for 6 months with awesome success but I don’t have a lot of conflict.
I see your point and agree. Maybe I was being dramatic. Maybe I should change “loss of friendship” to something like, “unresolved relationship tension”?
Is this IFS you are talking about? I just heard it for the first time last week and then a couple more times this week. I really need to learn what it is. Considering I didn’t know about IFS when I wrote this, any parallel or usages would be entirely accidental.
I too am uncomfortable with the power Hurt has. These rules are a bit unfair because I didn’t write these rules to be the “best way to resolve conflict” I wrote them to be the “best way to resolve conflict while not getting taken advantage of”.
So I think you are right, sometimes a person can have misguided emotional responses and the BEST thing to do would be to try to discuss those emotions and have them see how they could avoid the inappropriate response in the future. The problem with this is that talking someone out of their emotions or trying to change their emotional response is exactly how bad actors manipulate and abuse others. So under the constraints I set up, this can’t be allowed.
What if I added a part in the conclusion that states this is not the ideal rules for conflict resolution if you are willing to accept the risk of being manipulated. These are only the rules if you want to completely avoid the possibility of being manipulated, and are willing to accept the tradeoffs? Do you think that would square the vibes?
1. At least add say you’ve being doing something like this in the post for 6 months with awesome succees. A bigger ask would be providing more detail on what you mean by “awesome success” would be helpful. Give us a reason to believe this works.
2.
Making the changes to “loss of friendship”, along with adding your reasoning behind the rules in the conclusion would imrpve the post IMO.
3. When I considered tweaking this to be an internal therapy tool, I thought it would be similair to IFS. It is somewhat well known on LW. Kaj Sotala’s mutli-agent models of the mind sequence has a good exposition on the topic. There are probably better expositions, but that’s where I learned of it. There’s also a good discussion on the value of IFS and why rats like it here.
Your comments made it clear when this technique is valuable, so thanks. With some luck, I might try it out.
Thank you. I’m going to work on the edits. Also thank you for the link, I am going to read up on IFS before finals edits to see if I can see this with new eyes.