How not to say the wrong thing (2013) | Hacker News Reader

How not to say the wrong thing (2013)

latimes.com

113 pointsdredmorbius65 comments

A lot of these ideas if taken literally would harm the person in the center.

There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients. The history starts of course with Freud, but another prominent example was the theory of recovered memories in the late 1900s.

In this case, the ring theory was developed out of hurt because the first author felt hurt by something a colleague said. That's not generally a good basis for a theory of how to deal with something as complicated as trauma.

Even the basic idea of a "center" is suspect. In many cases, a traumatic event is an event that affects multiple people who must interact. The classic example of trauma is warfare. Families go through trauma. Even when there isn't a common trauma, many conversations happen between individuals who have separate but comparable traumas. You don't want to get into a frame of mind where you have to judge and compare people's trauma to determine what they can and can't say.

On top of that there is a lot of research on kvetching and whether it's good for patients. In most cases I'm aware of, it's harmful to them. Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), advocate the opposite of what this article is advocating. CBT says that the patient does best when they talk back to their own distorted thoughts. That means not thinking of yourself as the center of some universe, and not thinking of yourself as a "why me" victim that is targeted by some cosmic force. This article is saying diametrically the opposite; it says you should reinforce people's distorted thoughts.

Of course, you have to be kind and gentle to someone when they're having a hard time. But that kindness can take a lot of forms, and this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach.

This is fair. But I think that instead of debunking this approach, it just limits its applicability.

(1) Keep the "kvetching order" for the (relatively) short time when the impact of the trauma is still very strong and hasn't been processed by the person in the center.

(2) Do not allow two systems of kvetching rings clash. Yes, this includes both warfare, hopefully far from most people here, and, say, divorces.

This is not a universal solution. Taken too literally, or too long-term, it will harm the person(s) in the center it's intended to protect. Yes, sometimes the only way out of pain is through, "no pain, no gain". But this is a good rule-of-thumb kind of solution that helps limit the pain inflicted to the people definitely more hurt than you, without any significant gain. Maybe a traumatized person, for their long-term benefit. needs to have a difficult conversation that would be extra painful due to the trauma. But there's no reason to inflict pain by small talk and trivial daily iissues.

The article proposes a heuristic for people to use when offering support to those close to them. You are analyzing it as if it is a treatment plan for the person receiving support.

It doesn't say that it's good for someone in the hospital to spend all of their time complaining about their situation, it says that their co-worker who is visiting to be supportive probably shouldn't bring up how it was hard for them to do it.

I understand your point but the article quite literally says: “Here are the rules. The person in the center ring can say anything she wants to anyone, anywhere.”

I think GP has valid points about this “rules” impact.

I don't think it's meant as literal rules. It's a rhetorical device.

Basically everything in there has exceptions: sometimes the compassionate thing to do would be to give someone in an inner ring advice. Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things. Obviously it's not okay for the person in the middle to say "anything", either.

But, it's a really worthwhile thing to consider. Is the person you're going to talk to closer to the trauma than you? If so, would what you're saying be better to say to someone further away, instead?

> Just, 9/10 out of times, advice offered is unhelpful and worsens things.

Indeed. But if I were in some acute treatment in USA, in the center ring, I probably feel an unrestrained urge to ask for financial advice. "Dear, can the kids be indented into slavery if I die without paying the bills? Yes? Because I signed that form? Oh...somebody should have given me some advice..."

It says “can”. It doesn’t say should, or advise on what’s best for the person at the “center” to do. In fact that’s the whole point: it is advice meant for people who are, in their own analysis, not at the center of whatever trauma is being addressed.

Well, actually, your entire comment is a giant "well, actually" comment.

> this article is advocating a very particular and almost ideological approach.

No, it really isn't. It's talking about what not to do. As it says in the title. It's not instructing anyone to dump.

Your analysis of the proper motivations for creating a robust theory of behavior just isn't relevant here, in a discussion of that theory. It's kind of an example of going the wrong direction in a related sort of ring. At least the way I read it, you seemed to be talking about your personal disapproval, which isn't very relevant to other readers of the article. At least not by itself.

I wasn't talking about motivations for creating a theory, I was talking about the process of creating a true theory.

You can try to turn your pain into art, but it doesn't justify a theory. The theory has to be tested, and in this case it contradicts a lot of what is known about how to talk to people who have experienced trauma.

A lot of people talk to me about their trauma, and in many cases it's stuff they haven't talked to others in their life about. I think it's an important topic. One thing I've noticed is people I'm close to do much worse when they read a lot of social media from trauma influencers. Most of it seems innocuous or even helpful and a lot of it is similar in tone to this essay.

But what happens is the trauma-related content that rises to the top of the algorithmic leader board is the content that people engage with more. And that tends to be content that sinks people down deeper into the pain so that they seek out more trauma content to feel better. And so on in a recursive loop.

A lot of the content is about the value of venting, a hierarchical (and I would argue somewhat authoritarian) approach to supporting people who have been through trauma. There's often a surprisingly judgmental tone toward people who don't do the right thing to support people, etc.

>There's a long history of clinical psychology and evidence based psychology diverging, with the clinical psychologists adopting methods that actively harm their patients...Most evidence-based approaches, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)

sorry, but Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is clinical psychology. if a psychologist sees patients, that is clinical.

I am surprised that CBT and psychotherapy are even mentioned here. Grief at a death or upset at an injured family member are not dysfunctional emotions to be managed away and reconceptualised while the event is still happening. And what are you going to do if not "reinforce people's distorted thoughts"? Get into a screaming match with them about how they're not a victim and they're not being targeted by the universe? Again, this is advice for how to behave during an unfolding crisis, in which unpacking the injured party's belief system is less important than helping them with the paperwork and making sure they get some sleep and some of those hospital sandwiches they keep in the fridge at the nurses' station.

I read it as a rule of thumb or explanation device. You can replace it with a broader and probably better principle about all two-party interactions: "Which one of us is more challenged right now?" If you are the less challenged party, you should probably be mindful of airing your grievances.

And therein lies a complication: You might be dying of cancer but be a socially skilled person. And your visiting brother might be healthy as a spring baby, but as socially rude/unskilled as ever. Who is now the more challenged part - you might be dying of cancer, but you are still better equipped socially to wrangle your brother and the situation, than he is. I'm not saying we should tolerate that brother, but precisely his 'social cancer'/lack of ability to handle his (social) interactions leaves him with 'chronic social cancer' as well.

This goes too for whenever you are helping someone with solving their problem - are you helping them in a sensible way, relatively to how they are challenged - often we end up fighting the 'victim' as we smother them with 'advice'. ("Well you only have this problem because you refuse to do what I told you to do earlier" yada yada).

I disagree — Cancer is something happens to you. Being socially inept is, barring medical conductions which complicate social interaction, entirely something within your control. "Chronic social cancer" does not exist.

This kind of nitpicking is what the Kvetching Order avoids.

For having worked 30 years to get out of the socially inept zone, and given plenty of people consume known carcinogens willingly, I think this statement is a bit simplistic at best.

Smokers know they should stop smoking but it's hard to do so. Yet the path is clear.

If you are socially blind by nature, the path is really not clear and you are going to suffer from your ignorance while painfully battling to get out of a hole you can't see but feels very much is trapping you.

> Being socially inept is entirely something within your control

Ableism. What about neurodiversity? autism?

"Barring medical conductions which complicate social interaction" was the part you edited out? It's right there in the original comment...

Saying being socially inept is entirely within your control is like saying being bad at math is entirely within your control.

You have to understand that for a huge chunk of the population, abstract inter-personal models like ring theory and the "Kvetching Order" are just genuinely above them and if you were to try and stop the conversation so you could educate them on how better to converse, you'd end up being the boorish one.

Most people out there don't need Western psychology models to describe the emergent patterns in own their behavior. Most people just have friends and don't need to take a mental tally of whether they're the present adult in the room. I think that if you find someone's presence annoying or off-putting, it's probably not due to a lack of ring theory education, they might just have a personality.

Being bad at math _is_ entirely within your control....

The societal prior that most people are innately bad at math does throw a bit of a wrench in things. Alice doesn't get accolades for telling Bob that his failings are his fault and fixable, even in the best of scenarios. With a strong prior that spending thousands of hours studying won't help, Bob is further disinclined from even "wasting time" entertaining conversations attempting to explain the opposite position.

Nevertheless, nearly anyone who gets over that particular mental trap and finds a halfway decent mentor (or even just a particularly adept late-undergraduate tutor) is able to learn those concepts.

Disagree...but you make an important point. There are a lot of people whose social behavior shortcomings are of the "because I can get away with it" variety. If they need your approval, and have no power over you - out comes charming Dr. Jekyll. Otherwise, Mr. Hyde.

It's a lot like teenage boys being able to pick up their rooms.

I don't think that's irreconcilable with the author's point. Indeed, I find myself the "adult in the room" amount many of my friends and, frankly, most of my family. If something happens to me, it's usually my job to manage emotions. Likewise, if two people start a heated argument, or if one person wants to do the same with me, it's usually my job to de-escalate.

These aren't what I _want_, or what I _need_, for sure - especially if I am the more challenged of the two parties. That's the author's point. (You're sick? Why did you get sick?! You knew you needed to take precautions...!) But frankly the outcome is better for both of us if I choose to manage the situation on both our behalf - both of us "suffer" less.

Playing privilege or disability bingo is ... among the more distasteful practices I see people falling into. It doesn't just happen at a personal level but plays out often in politics, both within and between nations. You can all but certainly think of several examples right now.

The broader scope of Ring Theory advice is that one should not act in a way that's hurtful to others, physically, psychologically, or otherwise, without damned good reason. That's not to say never, it is to say that you should be strategic.

And if you find yourself in the presence of someone who treats you in that manner, do all that you practically can to extract yourself or reduce their capacity to act in that way. Physical space, allies running interference, authorities, whatever. Again, I'm aware this isn't always possible, but where it is possible it's a tremendous win.

This works well when you can take time away from the crisis. If you have a family member who is having crisis for many years, you will eventually have to talk to them about your own experiences or lose close connection that you used to have.

That's a fair point, and probably argues more for being able to take time off. It's also worth noting that for most people outside the immediate circles (and from whom inward-dumping seems most prevalent and toxic) aren't utterly enmeshed in the constant struggle.

Caregiving itself is extraordinarily trying and debilitating in that context. I'd like to see better understanding, support, and options there. Others' suggestions and experiences very much welcomed.

Mayo Clinic on caregiver burnout:

<https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregive...>

Another issue of chronic / long-term caregiving is that there are often frictions and conflicts which develop within families or other smaller groups, often pitting immediate caregivers (e.g., a spouse or adult children living with or near (an) elderly parent(s)), and more distant siblings or other relations.

Add in issues of long-standing relationship conflicts, cognitive decline, or paranoia and misperceptions arising as co-morbidities of many many long-term conditions or just simple old age, and the mix becomes all the more problematic. Oftentimes this is further compounded by support organisations (governmental or otherwise) which often aren't, or which assume an adversarial stance for or against specific parties, often unfounded.

That goes to a subtle and important point - although the advice in the article appears to be excellent in practice it is unfortunate that they led with the "This isn’t just about you." example. It is important to recall that, in a strategic sense, a crisis is not all about the person in crisis. An individual's crisis is can easily be a communal experience. Although it isn't a good time to start arguing with someone about that.

I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.

I'm going to push back on this.

If you're correct that this isn't all about the person at the heart of the crisis, and in at least some sense you are, it's still not the place to litigate that matter with that person.

And the problem with crises, health, existential, or otherwise, is that they not only bring out the best and worst in people, but they bring out the best and worst of people (as in types of people, not aspects of an individual). There are those who are drawn to an emergency out of an earnest desire to help (and in the best cases, with an awareness of whether or not they are in fact doing so). And there are those who see the same situation as an opportunity for personal gain, attention, or simply to sow chaos.

That second type includes both the deliberate and intentional and the helpless, in the sense that they simply cannot help themselves. (See Bonhoeffer on stupidity and evil: <https://bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeffers-theory-stupidity-e...>.) Both are quite harmful, though in different ways.

(Toxic people, as with cancers, are a shared symptom complex with differing etiologies.)

But the Ring Theory gives both a guide to what to do, as well as a handy index to who is failing to do so. And those (usually in secondary and tertiary rings) can do well to serve as gatekeepers and guardians excluding those harmful types, or finding clever ways to occupy themselves in ways such as to do the least harm.

Of that last, another element of crises is that there is all manner of ordinary mechanics of life which are still required but that those key to the crisis have difficulty in accomplishing. Tasking those whose words and actions can be harmful with performing the more remote elements of this (running errands, shopping, remote meal prep which can be heated or served on site, etc.) is a good way to give them the perception of being useful (and quite often they honestly are) without being excessively harmful.

That said, having to constantly remain aware that this is required, and to shop those who cannot contribute positively in the immediate vicinity, is itself taxing and tiring.

> If you're correct that this isn't all about the person at the heart of the crisis, and in at least some sense you are, it's still not the place to litigate that matter with that person.

Yeah, but that is why the example is unfortunate. If you read very closely, you'll notice that I said that too and I suspect we're in furious agreement. The problem with that example is it confuses two important issues - the right thing for one person to say, and the best thing for the other person to think.

You know, you're right ;-)

I don't know about litigate, but if someone is sick for long time and you are close to them, at some point maintaining that relationship requires talking about your own challenges, related to the illness or otherwise and for the other person to accept some practical and emotional responsibilities despite being sick. Otherwise you can certainly remain their caregiver and therapist but gradually lose connection as spouse/parent/child/friend/etc. Most people would not prefer that and at the same time it's easy to focus only on your own struggles and forget about needs of others.

I get where you're coming from.

I also think, based on both study and experience, that often it's better to simply act than to attempt to argue or negotiate.

Acting (including withdrawing your own support) doesn't require the participation or cooperation of the other party. Argument and negotiation both do. A fundamental limitation of rational interactions is the reliance on rationality by your counterparty.

Like most things, you probably shouldn't take it as a hard rule that unconditionally applies to all scenarios and can never be strayed from.

This essay introduces the "ring theory" of trauma. The ring is centred on the patient, with immediate caregivers, family, friends, and others, ultimately strangers on the Internet and Space Alien Cats, in the outermost rings.

Dumping flows out, comfort flows in.

It's the most succinct guideline for how to act around someone with a chronic or terminal condition I've found, and corresponds well to my own experience in multiple instances over the decades.

the problem with insensitive people isn't that they don't intuit the logic of this theory. it's that they insist that they are in a different ring that would justify their behavior.

Which is where the role of guardians / gatekeepers, which I mentioned in an earlier comment on this thread, comes in:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41177346>

Those people politely but firmly and effectively remove such people to their appropriate ring.

Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to or whether they are in a more inner ring than you? Obviously we don't always have the mental space to do so, but it doesn't quite sit right with me to say "these people are allowed to moan as much as they want". It feels like an arbitrary social more.

> Surely it is good practise to always try to offer comfort and support, and to listen, no matter who you are talking to

That would be ideal if everyone had unlimited emotional reserves. Often though, those who are closer to the center have fewer reserves left over. If they were supporting those closer and those farther out they would be exhausted and no longer to support those closer to the center.

> It feels like an arbitrary social more.

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary - the person in the center needs more support and probably has other things demanding their attention. Speaking from personal experience, it can be a relief to be free from worrying about some of the normal social rules (e.g. the knowledge that if you throw a tantrum, people will be understanding) even without taking advantage of that.

That said, I don't completely agree with the article. The people in the surrounding circles were still people I cared about - when I was able to comfort them I was happy to do so. I don't remember anyone saying something like "I don't know if I can handle it" to me, but I was aware that news of my condition would affect people, and I would have been willing to interpret such comments as a sign that they cared about me.

It makes total sense that the person at the centre deserves comfort and support. I didn't mean to imply that this aspect is anything other than fundamental to human psychology.

I think your second paragraph speaks to what feels artificial about this "theory" better than I could express it. It's almost like it's "baked in" that you dump outwards. Like there's an expectation to dump outwards. This feels ignorant of the diversity of human character. Most people will probably want to dump out at some time or another. But a lot of people will want to feel like they're being spoken to freely and honestly, without regard to social expectation.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't practise sensitivity and consideration. The big problem I have with the phrase "I don't know if I can handle it" is not the fact that this person is expressing that feeling, but how they're expressing it. It's somewhat catastrophising and insensitive to the centre person's feelings. You can say effectively the same thing much more tactfully; for example:

"I can only imagine how devastating this has been for you. It's been challenging for me too, because I really really want to support you but it's difficult to confront the situation and how badly it hurts you. I'm telling you this in part because I want you to know that if my support ever slips, it's not that I don't care, but rather that my own internal shit is making it hard to express that care properly. There have even been times where it felt overwhelming... but I hope that I can help you to feel my care for you even through those times."

If my friend said this to me, even in my darkest moments, I think that I would really appreciate the combination of candour and consideration. Although obviously not everyone is me and everything has to be decided case by case.

How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588709 - Aug 2022 (1 comment)

How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18156384 - Oct 2018 (47 comments)

I like how this is presented in a way that's easy to understand for engineers familiar with the i386 protection architecture.

Interesting, what it is exactly happen in i386?

Protected mode: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode>

Protected rings: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring>

The latter pre-dates the i386 (Multics offered security rings in the 1960), but the i386 was the first popular, cheap, personal computer chip, and the first in the Intel line (8008, 8086, x86) line to offer a protected mode / ring-based hardware security model.

I’m a bit disturbed by the way the article and most commenters here use the word trauma. Most of what’s discussed doesn’t seem to me to be "outside the normal range of human experiences".

Am I completely out of the loop about how the word is used in the US now?

trauma: "an emotional wound or shock often having long-lasting effects"

<https://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=wn&Query=traum...>

Etymology may also be informative: <https://www.etymonline.com/word/trauma>

The description you give seems to come from Wikipedia's article, which at this writing follows that immediately with: "It must be understood by the affected person as directly threatening the affected person or their loved ones with death, severe bodily injury, or sexual violence."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychological_tra...>

The situations being discussed in TFA and by numerous commenters (and certainly myself) do in fact involve direct threats of death or severe bodily injury to the affected person or their loved ones.

Well, no, the usual definition of trauma involves being "outside the normal range of human experiences". Having cancer is extremely distressing but it is not trauma.

Anyway, yours and the other answer I got confirm what I though. The word definition has indeed been widely broadened in the US.

late 17th century: from Greek, literally ‘wound’

- a deeply distressing or disturbing experience.

What's your definition.

"a powerful psychological shock that has damaging effects" OED, unchanged since 1917

A trauma is not just a distressing experience. That’s silly. We wouldn’t even have needed a new word if that was the case.

Why weaken and therefore overall diminish the English language?

So you literally went to another dictionary to prove yourself right?

Must be fun.

Yes; trauma feels like a heavyweight, serious business word reserved for the worst experiences of humankind, but in psychology it's used in a much wider context. For one, it's the result of a subjective experience, that is, what may traumatize one person may be someone else's day job.

I do like that the wiki page calls out in the first paragraph that witnessing traumatic events indirectly on TV may be distressing, but aren't considered traumatic experiences. And there are some people that use it too casually / colloquially.

"And don’t worry. You’ll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on that."

How reassuring :D

Thanks for sharing because I found this very useful advice.

> Remember, you can say whatever you want if you just wait until you’re talking to someone in a larger ring than yours.

Yeah, ... no. Not whatever you want.

Important to keep in mind. You can vent and ask for things, but you can't start violating boundaries.

sharing privy information to outer rings will also negatively impact the inner rings, there's definitely a limit which the authors don't mention

"Whatever you want" means venting, negative thoughts, complaints, etc.

Inner rings can complain out, and have no limits on those complaints.

Outer rings cannot complain in.

It's disappointing to see how many people fail to grasp this, even when stated simply and clearly.

Learn the difference between "fail to grasp" and "disagree".

No, maybe it's not a good idea to vent, in any direction.

Also: your estimate of which ring you are on relative to the person you are talking to may be off.

> Comfort IN, dump OUT.

Kiss up, kick down. Got it.

This is rather simple. If you are an empath you are already naturally aware of what the correct things to say are. It just comes naturally.

Most people are not empaths. If you are a deliberate narcissist, like a sociopath, you are probably an asshole. It does not really matter because you won't care anyways.

If you are supremely deficient in conscientiousness you have no desire to be a narcissist, but its just who you are. Whatever you say is going to be a gamble but that won't stop you from saying it anyways. So, again, for these people it really doesn't matter.

For everybody else: If you don't know what to say then just keep your mouth shut. For some people this can be extremely hard, and they will fail, but at least they know what to do to fix this. Just keep your mouth shut. It is that simple. There are no tricks. Once you realize how to keep your mouth shut you will naturally get better at listening and knowing the correct things to say will eventually come more naturally, so just shut your mouth.

I lost my dog recently. Nearly everyone knew enough to just say, "I'm so sorry,"

Your "therapy" ideas are over-intellectual BS. There is nothing you can possibly say that helps in the slightest.

"I'm so sorry" followed by some hard listening and keeping my own damned mouth shut is a hard-learned lesson I've had.

For someone you have strong rapport with, some level of humour or other commentary might be handy. And, after listening, and paying very close attention to cues, you might find that there are conversations to be had. They might have to do with the matter at hand, or they might be utterly unrelated but desperately needed diversion or distraction.

Offers of assistance are also usually welcome, though I've seen in a few places that being specific about what you're going to offer is better. "Can I fix you a meal / do grocery shopping / mow the lawn / take care of the pets" is much more specific than "let me know if you need anything". The latter as an addition to the first may work. "Can I fix you a meal, or do anything else?", for example.

Advice is the one thing that's almost uniformly toxic. It's an imposition, unless you're actually a trained professional you may well be far from helpful, and virtually all the most obvious / common (all senses of the word) suggestions have probably been made many, many, many times already. The end result is like telling an obese person that they're overweight. Odds are exceedingly good they're aware of the fact, and another person mentioning it serves no beneficial purpose. At worst, such advice turns into a twisted form of blame or imposition ("you wouldn't be in this state if you'd done ..."). That's hard to appreciate if you've not been in the other person's position, but seems quite common.

And I'm sorry to hear about your dog, really.

Right. "If I can do anything..." I'm not saying that's BAD to say, but it's pretty pro forma.

Clarifying my earlier point: offering to help in a way which only requires a yes/no answer is going to be cognitively easier for the recipient.

They can of course provide a more elaborate response or make an alternate request, if they choose to do so and are capable of formulating such a response. But make the initial ask easy to answer.

Another trap people fall into is in offering gifts or help for their own gratification. Baking a cake for someone who doesn't like eating cake (or has reasons not to eat cake) is not in fact doing them a benefit. And if the baker's response on learning of this is to rebuke them for rejecting your "gift" ... well, that just clarifies that their motivation was self-serving rather than other-serving in the first place.

(Such responses, along with all sorts of other basically idiotic behaviour, is of course far too frequent. I'm hoping some reading this might recognise the patterns.)

Someone mentioned offering a pot roast. I'd feel churlish for saying "I hate pot roast!" although I do. /s

In the midst of a past crisis, one thing that struck me most was how dinner simply showed up on the back door, in a pan, with heating instructions.

The neighbours had taken it on themselves to arrange for who was going to cook, what, and when.

We had absolutely nothing to think about in the process.

It was one of those really simple, but immensely touching, gestures.

There's a bit more context to it than that, but this was really the heart of it.

For me, this is also the norm and I kinda forgot that there are people that would need this article at all

The most consistent trait of common wisdom is that it's uncommon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com