I think the phenomenon of people “digging in their heels” is poorly understood, and I think there’s an extremely easy fix that would save a lot of people a lot of headache.
Advertising that I notice usually makes me less likely to buy the thing. Or, rather, regardless of the net effect, there is a negative effect. I have been disappointed, before, to see something in an advertisement that I suspect I would like to purchase, because "well _now_ I can't buy it!" even if I didn't know about it before.
I've been thinking about this. I don't disagree with what you wrote.
As I understand it, you are distinguishing between the action being asked of you and the inappropriate pressure that you'd be endorsing if you do what is being asked. Your solution is to unbundle that grouping and ideally say yes to the action being asked (if you agree with it) and no to the inappropriate pressure.
What feels incomplete to me about this is that when my gut says NO like that (even if it is an automatic anti-authority response like you describe), it often is a signal to me that that *I* internally don't fully agree.
The way you have it set up, I agree with the part that I screwed up and should apologize (or that my term was vague, or that I won't punch you, or that the exile's actions are bad), there's just this other issue of giving in to a certain type of force. Which I do agree with you covers a lot of the cases and is useful.
But in *enough* cases for my gut to hesitate, it turns out that there are different internal parts of myself that have *other* good reasons to dig in my heels. Taking the screw up apology example, there could be a way I'm viewing the situation which the other person simply is not seeing and not understanding about why I made the choices I made and did what I did. Apologizing doesn't just cause a problem of being inappropriately pressured; being 'inappropriately' pressured activated my "alarm sense" that there is more here going on for me.
Maybe it's more like "if I give in to your pressure" the problem is not *only* me giving in to coercion (which I think is inherently problematic). It is *also* a problem of "your coercion indicates a lack of seeing me and seeing how I think and seeing my perspective and the reasons for the choices I made" (even if part of me acknowledges I did screw up--I still screwed up *for a reason*). And now "giving in" also exacerbates a lack of "being on the same page," which can cause further disharmony and just in general indicates to me that a) there is more going on here for me than I've been able to articulate or b) I'm not being understood.
Oh, I thoroughly agree. I'm presenting the very simplest form of the problem in the essay above, and you're (quite compellingly) pointing at some of the complications that can arise.
I think part of what I'm trying to say, though, is that even in cases where there are actually three, or four, or five, or however many different things-going-on—
(different values in tension?)
—it's still usually the case that at least ONE pair of things are bundled together when they don't have to be, and unbundling them will help.
If it's the simple case, then unbundling them solves the problem. But yeah, definitely sometimes unbundling them just lets you realize that there are still one or more OTHER problems lurking under the surface.
In answer to the specific question of why I personally would not think of decoupling as an answer to the problem, it is because when I dig my heels in my *initial* inclination is "what else internally is making me hesitate that I didn't realize until now" or "what is the lack of communication/understanding going on that this person does not respect my autonomy and the choices I made here"
Yeah, perhaps the claim in the OP should be a little less bold: decoupling can solve *this aspect* of the problem, which might be larger and more complicated.
But I do think the-aspect-of-the-problem-that-is-solved-by-the-unbundling is overwhelmingly present. Like, I think it's rare for there to be a digging-in of the heels *without* that sort of bucket error lurking around *somewhere.*
This post made me think of the political discourse in Israel which very much feels like this. The first example is with the judicial reform from last year, and right now with the question of conscription of Haredim (usually called "ultraorthodox jews"). There's a lot of digging in heels going around, and a lot of brinksmanship.
I think your proposals are relevant for personal situations, I wonder what would be a good approach for political situations.
I'm surprised to see you say the punch bug essay was "just a metaphor". I definitely assumed it meant you would *actually* play punch bug without explicit consent, and that you would not have chosen it as a representative *example* (not "metaphor") if that weren't true
As a child, when we were all embedded in the same context, yeah. But that's extremely different. Separately, one can say "the world would be better if everyone X'd" without unilaterally X'ing.
Publishing that essay was a wonderful lesson in just how many words people will read into a thing, that you never put there yourself, and how little they will care when you point out that you didn't say [whatever] or anything that implies it.
(I do, in fact, still play punch bug with people as an adult, but not randos who I have never interacted with and know nothing about and whose boundaries' locations I don't know.)
> Action: try asking them (possibly in private/in a sidebar!) something like “hey, just wondering, are you really adamantly opposed to X because you think X itself is somehow bad or the wrong move? Or is it more like, doing X under these circumstances sends the wrong message or leads to something bad?”
>
> It’s a disentangling move, a space-creating move. Which is usually precisely what people need, especially if they were already feeling nervous or hesitant about X (i.e. wanting more time to think it through) and the people around them responded by shoving them toward X harder and more urgently.
Assuming they listen to your question, rather than cutting you off or walking away before you get the third word out. Otherwise, the attempted conversation will just show how little they respect you, and, if you try to pressure them into paying attention and reasoning with you, you’ve just given them another matter to dig in their heels about. They will disentangle themself and create space between them and any perceived duty to pay heed to people like you, denying you any reward for your unwelcome behavior.
Advertising that I notice usually makes me less likely to buy the thing. Or, rather, regardless of the net effect, there is a negative effect. I have been disappointed, before, to see something in an advertisement that I suspect I would like to purchase, because "well _now_ I can't buy it!" even if I didn't know about it before.
I've been thinking about this. I don't disagree with what you wrote.
As I understand it, you are distinguishing between the action being asked of you and the inappropriate pressure that you'd be endorsing if you do what is being asked. Your solution is to unbundle that grouping and ideally say yes to the action being asked (if you agree with it) and no to the inappropriate pressure.
What feels incomplete to me about this is that when my gut says NO like that (even if it is an automatic anti-authority response like you describe), it often is a signal to me that that *I* internally don't fully agree.
The way you have it set up, I agree with the part that I screwed up and should apologize (or that my term was vague, or that I won't punch you, or that the exile's actions are bad), there's just this other issue of giving in to a certain type of force. Which I do agree with you covers a lot of the cases and is useful.
But in *enough* cases for my gut to hesitate, it turns out that there are different internal parts of myself that have *other* good reasons to dig in my heels. Taking the screw up apology example, there could be a way I'm viewing the situation which the other person simply is not seeing and not understanding about why I made the choices I made and did what I did. Apologizing doesn't just cause a problem of being inappropriately pressured; being 'inappropriately' pressured activated my "alarm sense" that there is more here going on for me.
Maybe it's more like "if I give in to your pressure" the problem is not *only* me giving in to coercion (which I think is inherently problematic). It is *also* a problem of "your coercion indicates a lack of seeing me and seeing how I think and seeing my perspective and the reasons for the choices I made" (even if part of me acknowledges I did screw up--I still screwed up *for a reason*). And now "giving in" also exacerbates a lack of "being on the same page," which can cause further disharmony and just in general indicates to me that a) there is more going on here for me than I've been able to articulate or b) I'm not being understood.
Oh, I thoroughly agree. I'm presenting the very simplest form of the problem in the essay above, and you're (quite compellingly) pointing at some of the complications that can arise.
I think part of what I'm trying to say, though, is that even in cases where there are actually three, or four, or five, or however many different things-going-on—
(different values in tension?)
—it's still usually the case that at least ONE pair of things are bundled together when they don't have to be, and unbundling them will help.
If it's the simple case, then unbundling them solves the problem. But yeah, definitely sometimes unbundling them just lets you realize that there are still one or more OTHER problems lurking under the surface.
In answer to the specific question of why I personally would not think of decoupling as an answer to the problem, it is because when I dig my heels in my *initial* inclination is "what else internally is making me hesitate that I didn't realize until now" or "what is the lack of communication/understanding going on that this person does not respect my autonomy and the choices I made here"
Yeah, perhaps the claim in the OP should be a little less bold: decoupling can solve *this aspect* of the problem, which might be larger and more complicated.
But I do think the-aspect-of-the-problem-that-is-solved-by-the-unbundling is overwhelmingly present. Like, I think it's rare for there to be a digging-in of the heels *without* that sort of bucket error lurking around *somewhere.*
This post made me think of the political discourse in Israel which very much feels like this. The first example is with the judicial reform from last year, and right now with the question of conscription of Haredim (usually called "ultraorthodox jews"). There's a lot of digging in heels going around, and a lot of brinksmanship.
I think your proposals are relevant for personal situations, I wonder what would be a good approach for political situations.
I'm surprised to see you say the punch bug essay was "just a metaphor". I definitely assumed it meant you would *actually* play punch bug without explicit consent, and that you would not have chosen it as a representative *example* (not "metaphor") if that weren't true
As a child, when we were all embedded in the same context, yeah. But that's extremely different. Separately, one can say "the world would be better if everyone X'd" without unilaterally X'ing.
Publishing that essay was a wonderful lesson in just how many words people will read into a thing, that you never put there yourself, and how little they will care when you point out that you didn't say [whatever] or anything that implies it.
(I do, in fact, still play punch bug with people as an adult, but not randos who I have never interacted with and know nothing about and whose boundaries' locations I don't know.)
> Action: try asking them (possibly in private/in a sidebar!) something like “hey, just wondering, are you really adamantly opposed to X because you think X itself is somehow bad or the wrong move? Or is it more like, doing X under these circumstances sends the wrong message or leads to something bad?”
>
> It’s a disentangling move, a space-creating move. Which is usually precisely what people need, especially if they were already feeling nervous or hesitant about X (i.e. wanting more time to think it through) and the people around them responded by shoving them toward X harder and more urgently.
Assuming they listen to your question, rather than cutting you off or walking away before you get the third word out. Otherwise, the attempted conversation will just show how little they respect you, and, if you try to pressure them into paying attention and reasoning with you, you’ve just given them another matter to dig in their heels about. They will disentangle themself and create space between them and any perceived duty to pay heed to people like you, denying you any reward for your unwelcome behavior.
Er, sounds like a completely different problem.