It seems to me that many even not so close acquaintances may—simply out of genuine concern for a fellow human being that (in their conviction*) seems to be suffering—want to offer support, even if they may be clumsy in it as they’re not used to the situation. I find that rather adorable; for once the humans show a bit of humaneness, even if I’d not be surprised if you’re right that often it does not bring much (and even if I’d grant that they might do it mostly as long as it doesn’t cost them much).
*I guess I’m not in a minority if I didn’t know how extremely curable balls cancer apparently is.
I think the post nicely points out how some stoicism can be a sort of superpower in exactly such situations, but I think we should appreciate how the situation looks from the outside for normal humans who don’t expect the victim to be as stoically protected as you were.
In principle it is, but I think people do need some self awareness to distinguish between “I wish to help” and “I wish to feel like a person who’s helping”. The former requires focusing more genuinely on the other, rather than going off a standard societal script. Otherwise, if your desire to help ends up merely forcing the supposedly “helped” person to entertain you, after a while you’ll effectively be perceived as a nuisance, good intentions or not.
Fair! Yes. I guess I mainly have issues with the tone in the article, which in turn then makes me fear there’s little empathy the other way round: i.e. it’s going too strongly in the direction dismissing all superficial care as greedy self-serving display or something, while I find the underlying motivation—however imperfect—is often kind of a nice trait, coming out of genuine care, and it’s mainly a lack of understanding (and yes, admittedly some superficiality) of the situation that creates the issue.
The article is party written from a past-me perspective, and I agree that it is a bit harsh. Also, there are multiple things converging to create an expectation mismatch.
It seems to me that many even not so close acquaintances may—simply out of genuine concern for a fellow human being that (in their conviction*) seems to be suffering—want to offer support, even if they may be clumsy in it as they’re not used to the situation. I find that rather adorable; for once the humans show a bit of humaneness, even if I’d not be surprised if you’re right that often it does not bring much (and even if I’d grant that they might do it mostly as long as it doesn’t cost them much).
*I guess I’m not in a minority if I didn’t know how extremely curable balls cancer apparently is.
I think the post nicely points out how some stoicism can be a sort of superpower in exactly such situations, but I think we should appreciate how the situation looks from the outside for normal humans who don’t expect the victim to be as stoically protected as you were.
In principle it is, but I think people do need some self awareness to distinguish between “I wish to help” and “I wish to feel like a person who’s helping”. The former requires focusing more genuinely on the other, rather than going off a standard societal script. Otherwise, if your desire to help ends up merely forcing the supposedly “helped” person to entertain you, after a while you’ll effectively be perceived as a nuisance, good intentions or not.
Fair! Yes. I guess I mainly have issues with the tone in the article, which in turn then makes me fear there’s little empathy the other way round: i.e. it’s going too strongly in the direction dismissing all superficial care as greedy self-serving display or something, while I find the underlying motivation—however imperfect—is often kind of a nice trait, coming out of genuine care, and it’s mainly a lack of understanding (and yes, admittedly some superficiality) of the situation that creates the issue.
The article is party written from a past-me perspective, and I agree that it is a bit harsh. Also, there are multiple things converging to create an expectation mismatch.