Set the Line Before It's Crossed
nomagicpill.substack.com
nomagicpill.substack.com
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?
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.
I think this article is a pretty good complement to ask vs. guess culture https://jeanhsu.substack.com/p/ask-vs-guess-culture
in my experience, people from ask-heavy cultures will only respond to clear lines. otherwise they will just keep pushing. if you have people in your life who are very good at recognizing soft boundaries, you don't need this skill with them, but it will be helpful for people who ignore soft boundaries.
> Lines Will Move Further Away If They Aren’t Defined
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Sometimes I think some line is important, then I move closer to it, and realise the line is less important to me, and so I'll be less cautious of it.
Some might say "slippery slope!" or "boiling a frog!", but I think of it as me updating my values as I learn more.
Some people are prone to black-and-white thinking, and so I can see why they might be drawn to hard lines.
It is not about slipper slope, you are not falling, you are simply consistently making decisions based on what people around you approve. If you dont have lines, you dont have values. You are just doing what is easy or socially approved right now.
> Social approval from peers comes first, lines are moved, always because something that is approved by friends.
I hope so! It would be too much for someone to figure this out all by themselves.
Should lines have been set in 1500? 1800? 2026?
A lost art today, where narcisism is "everybody else is toxic" and boundaries for everything is the norm.
Also, in fact, you can have friends and boundaries. If you cant, you need therapy.
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.
Not being repaid is possibly a reason not to lend him any more money. I don't see it as a reason to cut contact with him, though.
My motto, is that people have helped me a lot in life, with time, resources and sometimes money.
If I loan money, I explicitly do not expect to be repaid, and will generally say, pass it on.
Also it's often not the loaner side who cuts off contact. But if the person who receives the loan cannot repay it, and every time they talk to you, they feel guilty and think about it. They might just start avoiding you.
The moral dilemma might be more significant if the amount is large enough to worry you.
Suppose a close friend needs $50k for medical treatment, but it's $50k you had saved to pay for your child's university, and they promise to pay you back gradually so it's in time for your child to start university, but meanwhile they don't pay any back, and instead spend their income on a fancy car. I think it would be challenging to remain friends with that person.
Thus, if you read this comment, you owe me $5, payable via nothing, because money is a construct anyway. So if you can afford to, give your friend a monetary gift. If they can't repay you, and you can't afford to not have that money, then you can't afford to lend them that money and you have to learn to say no.
No, it's not.
A boundary is something you're saying about your behavior. "If you use racist language at me, I will have to end this conversation."
And much, much worse than someone with "a minefield full of unnecessary boundaries" is someone who has boundaries they don't tell you about.
You should only set boundaries that are real boundaries for you, not just whims or arbitrary decisions. But if you do have boundaries—and everyone does; if you think you don't, then you just haven't had someone cross them (or haven't realized that's what happened when they did)—you must communicate them in contexts where there's a real chance of them being crossed.
To do otherwise is unfair to everyone else and to yourself.
I think this falls under de-escalation, and there's lots of approaches.
Communicating boundaries, or stating if-thens, can be an escalation in some situations.
Steering the conversation/situation away works in some situations.
Non-verbal communication can work, and be more tactful: it allows an accidentally-offensive person to recognise, pull back and show support. This smoothes out conversations, and is common enough that it's expected for many.
For groups of people that use non-verbal communication less, then perhaps explicitly stating things is the only option.
But don't be surprised if non-verbal communicators interpret it as combative!
"Wow, Foo got upset quickly at me, and in front of others. [Why didn't Foo make it clearer that they were getting uncomfortable [using non-verbal methods]]".
An ultimatum says “you must do X or else I will do Y”
A boundary says “you must refrain from X or else I will do Y”.
You make a distinction without a difference. In either case, without providing for compromise or alternative mutual understanding, it is likely confounding and demanding.
Additionally, an ultimatum comes with a deadline; a boundary is indefinite (until stated otherwise).
In a sexual relationship context, that distinction could be better illustrated by:
"Don't touch me like that again without asking first, or I will break up with you"
vs
"If you don't have sex with me by the end of the week, I'll break up with you".
An ultimatum is, to most people, inherently damaging to psychological safety. A boundary is not automatically better - it can be unreasonable, unhealthy, or incompatible with the other persons needs - but unlike an ultimatum, it's not _inherently_ harmful to the relationship.
I mean...I'm a pretty easygoing guy overall. My boundaries are things like, "If you come up and scream in my face, I'll tell you to sod off." "If you punch me, I'll probably shove you back." Reasonable boundaries for other people might be "if you grab my butt, I will report you to HR", or "if you ask me to work unpaid overtime, I will refuse (and report you to HR/the NLRB)".
It seems like you think "people setting boundaries" looks like telling your coworkers things like "never ever speak to me in anything but the most respectful tones" or "if you ask me about my personal life, even the tiniest bit, I will call the police". Except in extremely unusual circumstances, "boundaries" like that are actually people being abusive of their coworkers.
Did your good friend not repay his loan? Okay, what's the size of the loan, and how did they react when you reminded them? What's the circumstances surrounding the loan itself - did they borrow for the down payment of a mansion, or did they borrow to buy cheese?
Also, if you're treating your life as a game theory set piece then perhaps that's a place where you should start making changes. Just sayin'.
is it? the example given for things implied to disallow are playful pinching/punching.
Even the author's implied choice of line is suspect here.
If I start by not liking playful pinches and said so, you should stop doing them. That is the initial situation. But in this (made up) story, she moves then line and tolerates them, because he is not stopping and she does not see it as a red flag.
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.
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.
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.
email contents: Hey, btw im not ur friend anymore. regards, not your friend
(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.)
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.
I don't want to be a pedant but more stock or time off are raises by another name. They're literally money the company gives you.
The company also would be giving you money if they, e.g. , gave you sets of annual Disney tickets, or a family membership in a luxury gym.
That's the whole point - there's an unlimited amount of potential outcomes that your original hard limit doesn't cover. Of course your final decision can be targeted towards "net value to you", but fundamentally, you can only assess net value once you have the facts.
Your hard limit becomes "I'll quit if I don't like it". Which, really, you don't need a "hard limit" for.
There are degrees of liquidity and "cash-like"-ness. Converting stock in a publicly traded corporation into cash is trivial. Companies with RSU plans have an auto-sale option so you never have to deal with the stock yourself if you don't want to. You just get cash in your bank account. Paid vacation is literally cash (they pay you money but you don't have to work), or is paid out as cash if left unused.
That's not the same Disney tickets or membership in a gym. If you don't need those things then turning them into ready cash takes a bit of work.
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.