It’s ok, Harlan, you save up for that baby and don’t let the cult browbeat you over it.
(People are fuzzy and while game theory is fun and even sometimes useful, this kind of stuff skeeves me out and I think it lures “smart” people in and gets them to empower the SBFs of the world. My altruism is ineffective and I’m happy that way.)
I'm not convinced setting clear lines is a net positive. A line means digging your heels in. The act of setting a line makes you resistant to change: you anchor your values as they are today, and it comes at the cost of tomorrow.
Domestic violence is an obvious line to set, but are you really going to cut a good friend off for not repaying a loan? I would argue that the former is a net good (protects people from abuse) while the latter is a net harm (causes people to abandon their friends when times are bad, without helping to get repaid). I would also argue that most lines fall into the latter category.
Setting lines to protect moral, philosophical, or political beliefs seems even worse, because it's preventing you from changing your mind about those things. Once you've set a line, you can't adapt to change as easily. Having criteria for changing your mind is a band-aid over the problem, because those criteria are set by you as you are today, and they're biased by your current beliefs.
> are you really going to cut a good friend off for not repaying a loan?
In my experience nobody asks me, their friend, for a (nontrivial) loan unless they've exhausted more conventional lines of credit. Bank loans, credit cards, getting their parents to bail them out.
The friends who I'd rely on to pay their debts don't need $500 from me to help cover their rent this month. And the friends who are already struggling with credit card debt ain't good credit risks, and don't need more debt added to the pile.
I'd sooner just gift them the $500 in the first place.
You outline an ideal but in my estimation probably 20% of people actively let others “set their lines” for them. They are so used to deferring decision making or suppressing their own feelings on the matter that they lose the ability to do it entirely. Maybe for them this article is a step in the right direction.
This next part is woo-woo, take it for what it’s worth.
When getting my massage license we had a whole day talking about how many people have chronic pain because they suppress negative emotion and it ends up on their body. Think “grin and bear it”. It turns out “bearing it” is a physical process in your body with negative consequences. You probably know someone like this who is very agreeable and also has very bad headaches, gut problems, strange pains/“fibromyalgia” symptoms. They’re always chasing a medical reason for their discomfort but maybe their discomfort is that they are holding in a lot of resentment instead of “holding their line” as the article puts it.
Stress is /always/ manifested physically in the body—what would it even mean to be stressed out but also totally physically relaxed? And as it turns out, letting other people stomp all over your intentions is very stressful.
This is neat in theory, but unworkable in practice.
The hard line trigger almost always happens in a wider context. You often want the wider context, but it's impossible to fully define. Let's try a few examples from the article:
"Hard line: Annual raise is 0%" -> What if it comes with a much larger stock grant? Or additional paid time off? Or something else you value? Will you really just mechanistically quit?
"Hard line: A friend doesn’t repay an $X loan" -> really? What if, say, they lost their job? You want to make friendship contingent on your friends employed. There's a reason there's an adage saying "Don't loan money to a friend, you might need to decide whom you like more".
"Hard line: A government blatantly violates a constitutional amendment" -> Not even waiting for a court decision? What if it's Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus? Or Wilson enforcing the espionage act, if that's more your political leaning? What if the government first repeals the amendment - will you be pro-slavery if it's made legal?
The world isn't a series of if-then statements. Even a hard line requires more than a single condition - at best, that condition reminds you to re-evaluate where you are.
The line is “It’s not necessarily helpful to be clear about lines.” combined with “who the hell are you to tell us how to live, kiddo?” with a little bit of “let’s all silently agree that each human should be defensive and prickly at all times instead of ever being soft and accommodating to their friends and family and colleagues.”
Some will downvote this comment just because I am being trying to be clear about my lines right now, which proves my point. If popularity matters to me, I need to do more smiling and shrugging.
Here's a remark I made about setting boundaries in a completely different forum:
More from the pasture: The herd has settled. The chestnut mare is boss, and she's a good alpha. My paint mare is second. The old draft horse gelding is third, and the grey is fourth. Today I went into the pasture to catch the paint. I call her, and she comes to me. But chestnut boss comes up and herds the paint away from me. So I have to have a talk with the boss.
I make eye contact with her, and walk up to her. She glares at me, but doesn't show hostility. I wave my hands a little at waist level, and she backs up one step. That's a mild submission, and all I needed. Now I can halter the paint mare. The boss mare watches closely, but does not interfere.
As someone else says, handling horses will teach you about setting boundaries in a very practical way.
When abuse done to parents by their child. When parents keep denying lines have been crossed. They live in delusional state everything good, wait for one more day and it will stop. But it keeps aggravating till everything fall aparts, other members of family affected. When one child goes wrongway and parents are reluctant to accept it they kept clinging to them, they never settle upon line's crossed now it should stop as they can't hurt their child, they can't give up on them, ultimately that child starts feeling invincible whatever they may do they won't be stopped or punished by parents, and eventually parents unknowingly destroying life of their other child, other members of family, for their love of one bad element that they can't give up.
Thats my personal experience, having my life destroyed, good happy smiling family teared apart, because one of sibling gone wrong way started abusing our parents, and they did'nt drew lines, kept forgiving.
This is missing the most important step: get out there and practice.
You're not going to succeed at steps #6 and #7 in situations as dire as what the author describes without practicing a bunch. You have to choose low stakes, real situations to gain experience:
* a cashier asks you if you want to round up by donating to charity
* a friend asks if you want to do an activity with them, and you do not want to do that activity with them
* someone suggests splitting the check down the middle, but you only had a tiny side salad
* etc.
You can of course handle these however you want. But if you want to learn to set a line when it's important, you should have already practiced in a dozen or so cases like this, without apologizing: No, thank you / No, I'm not into that / I'm leaving enough to pay for my tiny side salad plus a nice tip
Practice doesn't guarantee you won't buckle in tough situations. But you'll definitely buckle if you don't.
> Automate the action. For example, write a script that looks to see if the friend who borrowed money ever paid it back by a certain date. If current_date > deadline_date & money_repaid = false, then send an automated email unfriending them.
email contents:
Hey,
btw im not ur friend anymore.
regards,
not your friend
I feel trying to codify human behaviour into simple rules is pretty tough.
Playfully rough intercourse might be the best ever, or turn out quite horrible at the wrong time; the only difference being subtle difference in mood of the parties involved. Same for using somebody as an emotional trashcan, or making a semi-offensive humorous joke about somebody. There's no objective truth.
Boundaries are very fluent and dynamic, depending on moods and trust between parties. Knowing when to give in and being able to walk those rough edges is often what makes life interesting and people good partners and friends.
22 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 44.1 ms ] thread(People are fuzzy and while game theory is fun and even sometimes useful, this kind of stuff skeeves me out and I think it lures “smart” people in and gets them to empower the SBFs of the world. My altruism is ineffective and I’m happy that way.)
Domestic violence is an obvious line to set, but are you really going to cut a good friend off for not repaying a loan? I would argue that the former is a net good (protects people from abuse) while the latter is a net harm (causes people to abandon their friends when times are bad, without helping to get repaid). I would also argue that most lines fall into the latter category.
Setting lines to protect moral, philosophical, or political beliefs seems even worse, because it's preventing you from changing your mind about those things. Once you've set a line, you can't adapt to change as easily. Having criteria for changing your mind is a band-aid over the problem, because those criteria are set by you as you are today, and they're biased by your current beliefs.
In my experience nobody asks me, their friend, for a (nontrivial) loan unless they've exhausted more conventional lines of credit. Bank loans, credit cards, getting their parents to bail them out.
The friends who I'd rely on to pay their debts don't need $500 from me to help cover their rent this month. And the friends who are already struggling with credit card debt ain't good credit risks, and don't need more debt added to the pile.
I'd sooner just gift them the $500 in the first place.
This next part is woo-woo, take it for what it’s worth.
When getting my massage license we had a whole day talking about how many people have chronic pain because they suppress negative emotion and it ends up on their body. Think “grin and bear it”. It turns out “bearing it” is a physical process in your body with negative consequences. You probably know someone like this who is very agreeable and also has very bad headaches, gut problems, strange pains/“fibromyalgia” symptoms. They’re always chasing a medical reason for their discomfort but maybe their discomfort is that they are holding in a lot of resentment instead of “holding their line” as the article puts it.
Stress is /always/ manifested physically in the body—what would it even mean to be stressed out but also totally physically relaxed? And as it turns out, letting other people stomp all over your intentions is very stressful.
The hard line trigger almost always happens in a wider context. You often want the wider context, but it's impossible to fully define. Let's try a few examples from the article:
"Hard line: Annual raise is 0%" -> What if it comes with a much larger stock grant? Or additional paid time off? Or something else you value? Will you really just mechanistically quit?
"Hard line: A friend doesn’t repay an $X loan" -> really? What if, say, they lost their job? You want to make friendship contingent on your friends employed. There's a reason there's an adage saying "Don't loan money to a friend, you might need to decide whom you like more".
"Hard line: A government blatantly violates a constitutional amendment" -> Not even waiting for a court decision? What if it's Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus? Or Wilson enforcing the espionage act, if that's more your political leaning? What if the government first repeals the amendment - will you be pro-slavery if it's made legal?
The world isn't a series of if-then statements. Even a hard line requires more than a single condition - at best, that condition reminds you to re-evaluate where you are.
The line is “It’s not necessarily helpful to be clear about lines.” combined with “who the hell are you to tell us how to live, kiddo?” with a little bit of “let’s all silently agree that each human should be defensive and prickly at all times instead of ever being soft and accommodating to their friends and family and colleagues.”
Some will downvote this comment just because I am being trying to be clear about my lines right now, which proves my point. If popularity matters to me, I need to do more smiling and shrugging.
More from the pasture: The herd has settled. The chestnut mare is boss, and she's a good alpha. My paint mare is second. The old draft horse gelding is third, and the grey is fourth. Today I went into the pasture to catch the paint. I call her, and she comes to me. But chestnut boss comes up and herds the paint away from me. So I have to have a talk with the boss.
I make eye contact with her, and walk up to her. She glares at me, but doesn't show hostility. I wave my hands a little at waist level, and she backs up one step. That's a mild submission, and all I needed. Now I can halter the paint mare. The boss mare watches closely, but does not interfere.
As someone else says, handling horses will teach you about setting boundaries in a very practical way.
You're not going to succeed at steps #6 and #7 in situations as dire as what the author describes without practicing a bunch. You have to choose low stakes, real situations to gain experience:
* a cashier asks you if you want to round up by donating to charity
* a friend asks if you want to do an activity with them, and you do not want to do that activity with them
* someone suggests splitting the check down the middle, but you only had a tiny side salad
* etc.
You can of course handle these however you want. But if you want to learn to set a line when it's important, you should have already practiced in a dozen or so cases like this, without apologizing: No, thank you / No, I'm not into that / I'm leaving enough to pay for my tiny side salad plus a nice tip
Practice doesn't guarantee you won't buckle in tough situations. But you'll definitely buckle if you don't.
I had figured it was experience + natural skill. How much are these people actively practicing?
email contents: Hey, btw im not ur friend anymore. regards, not your friend
Playfully rough intercourse might be the best ever, or turn out quite horrible at the wrong time; the only difference being subtle difference in mood of the parties involved. Same for using somebody as an emotional trashcan, or making a semi-offensive humorous joke about somebody. There's no objective truth.
Boundaries are very fluent and dynamic, depending on moods and trust between parties. Knowing when to give in and being able to walk those rough edges is often what makes life interesting and people good partners and friends.