To what extent are you responsible for other's feelings?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it's not a bad question at all, just difficult to answer.

I don't care much for legal responsibilities, so that was not included in my answer. I operate under my own code of ethics. To me, what is right or wrong is not determined by the law. The law does not always have the best interests of the people in mind.

We have a responsibility to act in an ethical manner as often as possible. That is where our responsiblity lies. We are not responsible to bend over backwards to accommodate others, especially if it is hurting ourselves or other groups. We should not have to be responsible to anticipate every action that may hurt the feelings of another, but we should try to take the feelings of others into account.

I do not expect everyone else to make unreasonable accomodations for my autism. My autism does not give me the right to treat others badly. For instance: I can't be around others eating. I hate the sounds of eating. I hate when people display bad table manners, and I hate being near anyone when they are eating. I also prefer to eat alone. But I don't get to dictate how others are eating, or insist that they eat more quietly, or yell at them, just because it makes me anxious and uncomfortable. I will simply leave the room, or cover my eyes or ears if possible. My right to be comfortable and not anxious does not supercede their right to eat like normal human beings. It's my problem, not theirs.

But, I also hate being touched, unless I feel like being physically affectionate, which isn't very often. I've told people this countless times. I also want people to keep a certain (reasonable) distance from me, and to avoid touching my hair or face especially. This preference is disregarded almost every single day. It causes me great discomfort and anxiety. I do have the right to decide whether or not I wish to be touched, and to keep a certain degree of space between myself and others. If I am feeling anxious and upset because others have violated my personal space or touched me, then that is their problem, and so they are responsible for my negative feelings in that case, and are in the wrong.

True, however there are sound reasons why there certain limitation on legal responsibility, or clear responsibility in other cases. The law can't afford to be too ambiguous.

Ultimately it comes down to rights.

The "principle of rights" is you can have one right the limits the rights of others, especially not fundamental rights. That is why certain things can't be rights becuase they would limit others freedom.

There are basically three types of rights;
1. Fundamental (very few of these for above reasons).
2. Rights derivative of fundamental rights (freedom of speech is derivative of freedom of expression).
3. Non-fundamental / privileges / pseudo-rights / special legal statuses (these can sometimes interfere with fundamental rights others by skewing the legal balance between subjects).



Do you have to remind them, or let them know?

Under the law, assault includes thing other then direct contact, however there has to be intent.

I remind them constantly. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to do any good. I wouldn't legally go after any of these people, they are mostly family. However, it's annoying, and disrespectful.

I've basically just given up on it. I do agree with you, the basic rights of others should not be interfered with, and that is why my issue with other people's eating are my problem, and not their responsibility. Same with crowds, and loud noises, and many other things that cause me problems. I cannot expect the world to adapt to me. But they still must respect my personal space.

As far as work adaptations, I do believe that reasonable accommodations should be made. "Reasonable" is the key word, here. Such as being able to wear earphones to block out noise, getting a break every once in awhile, having a space (if possible) where I can be left to do my work in peace, etc. However, I should not be allowed to be chronically late, rude to customers, or to do annoying stims that interfere with others' work.

Given that feelings are subjective, does it not then follow that the responsibility to those feeling is also subjective?

Don't get me wrong feelings such as empathy are the foundation of societal morality. Yet that morality has to evolve into a functional system of limits.

The real question is if there is culpability.

I suppose. But really the best way is to come up with works best for most people and go with it.

Some people are quite sensitive; others are almost completely lacking in emotion. There are mentally ill people, drug addicts, those with developmental disabilities, those who are ill, children, etc. Every one of these variables can cause one to be more or less emotional.

Obviously, everyone has their own ideas about what responsibility they have for the feelings of others. There is no one rule that is going to work for everyone. Reasonable people ought to be able to take things on a case by case basis and determine the amount of sensitivity to others' feelings that is required for different people and situations.

It's really much too complicated to make very many black and white rules regarding the matter.

There would be culpability in a legal sense if the emotional distress were the result of a crime being committed.

I actually wrote a blogpost on this concept but never published it:

"I want you to modify your feelings."
Control your feelings.
Control your facial expressions.
Control your tone of voice and volume.

Smile at me whether you're happy or not. If you're not happy, fake a smile; pretend to be happy so I can be comfortable around you.

Seriously?

I'm responsible not only for my own feelings, but also for yours?
Are you responsible for my feelings? I don't think you are. I don't hold you accountable for them, anyway--not when you're just trying to move about our shared space and get on with whatever you're trying to do. If you get in my space and tell me I'm doing something wrong, or bad, or mean, or stupid--when I was barely aware that anything I was doing was having any impact on you--then I might say you spoiled my mood or hurt my feelings. But if we're not even interacting, your feelings probably won't affect me much, and I don't understand why mine should affect you. I've gotten to the point where even "what's wrong?" or "are you okay?" sound like a condemnation. I hear anger, and accusation, as in: "What's wrong with you? Why can't you behave normally?" rather than loving concern (can I help you feel better?).

If I try to reach out and be polite or kind to you--saying good morning, smiling because I actually am happy for once and am glad to see you because I think you like me--that's a little different. I'm putting forth a positive effort to have a positive impact on you. What do you do? Smile back? Awesome. Say good morning, how are you? Usually a bit better, though it's one of those things that seems to feel different to "nypicals" than it does to people on the spectrum. Autistics take such questions literally, and will usually answer honestly. It's hard for us to remember that we're expected to say something shallow and fluffy like "fine thanks how are you" even if we're screaming in agony on the inside, trying to hold back a too-much-input meltdown. Of course, if I started it by smiling at you and saying good morning, I usually am fine, thanks. I might even feel happily surprised at how fine I feel, because I'm more used to feeling anxious, depressed, concerned and/or confused.

But if you're not feeling fine, and you let me know--yeah, it hurts a little bit. It takes some of the spring out of my step. But unless I have reason to believe it's somehow my fault that you're not happy, it probably won't affect me for very long. I can choose not to allow your grumpy, cranky, angry or impatient mood bother me for more than a few minutes. Why can't you make that choice when I'm upset? Why do you assume that either it's your fault that I'm upset, it's my responsibility to hide it so it won't bring you down, or at the very least it's your responsibility to fix it? It's not. At least, not always. And your attempts to fix it usually make it worse, because you get impatient when I can't explain it, or you get upset when my attempts to explain it seem clumsy or hostile or accusatory, or you get condescending about whatever's bothering me. Your responses often communicate to me that you think it isn't a real problem because if you were in my shoes, you'd know immediately exactly what to do and you'd just do it, problem solved, what's the big deal.

But if you're all happy and smiling and good morning, sunshine, smile, the world is a wonderful place--when I'm feeling kind of cranky, or tired, or in pain and not coping with it well, or on the verge of a too-much-input meltdown--why do you require me to force myself to smile back and mirror your good mood? I can't seem to cheer you up when you're grumpy, why do you keep poking me when I'm grumpy? Why do I have to hear the are you okay, what's wrong, why aren't you happy, why don't you smile back at me, why are you dragging me down when I was in such a good mood--I was having a good day until you came along and ruined it--why is that my fault? Why is that on me? Why can't you let me go find a quiet place to pray, meditate, and contemplate my crabbiness until I can actively turn it around?

If you would just allow me the space and the time to decompress, find my center, be still and quiet long enough to hear my own north star--I might be able to come back out and smile at you. To say "I feel better now, thank you for letting me have some peace." If you would just walk away from me when I'm too grouchy to smile and too tired to fake it for your sake, you might have a chance to hold on to your good mood, and I might have a chance at turning myself around on my own and coming back to you when I feel better.

But for you to say that if you're in a bad mood, it's my fault because I didn't smile at you

While also saying that if I'm in a bad mood it's my fault for being a bad, spoiled selfish person

How is that even remotely fair? Isn't that a double standard?

You can't make me feel better by telling me that I ought to feel better. You definitely won't make me feel better by telling me that my bad mood is somehow contagious and infecting everyone, while your bad moods are just you being tired and I have your permission to not let it bother me. Either your bad moods are your fault, and my bad moods are my fault--OR your bad moods are my fault, and my bad moods are your fault. I know which I'd pick. If I can blame you for all of my bad moods, and you blame me for all your bad moods, how will we ever be able to do anything but fight and argue? Wouldn't it be better if you decided not to let my crankiness drag you down when you're happy, as I try to move past your cranky/tired/hurting moments and depend on myself and what I believe in for my inner peace and my joy?

Edited somewhat, because I don't want this to turn into a religious debate or a partner-bash. My unpublished blogpost has more of that flavour which is why it's unpublished!

I have not heard of a separate crime of causing emotional distress. I have heard of psychological impact been taken into account, however I think intent has to be established. That is one of those grey areas of the law. I have heard of civil actions.

Some places such as movie theaters have done autism friendly movies where they keep the lights dimmed, keep the volume down of the movie. But it's very limited because only selected theaters do it and they only do it on certain days and stuff with certain movies.

I remember as a kid, I was apparently responsible for how I felt and I realize now I don't think I was in trouble for how I felt, I was in trouble for how I reacted and handled it. But this was something I didn't understand as a kid. I am sure most kids learn to handle their feelings better and how to handle the situation after they get in trouble for it but this didn't work with me because all it did was it made me feel victimized, little kids are monsters and can get you into trouble if they want to, all they have to do is do things to upset you, I am wrong for how I feel and my feelings are wrong and I have no right to feel that way. No wonder I had problems by 6th grade and why I got so aggressive and then I was threatened with a mental hospital.

Also I was told in high school that someone didn't insult me when I felt insulted and also no one gave a darn if I didn't like seeing photos of f the World Trade centers my teacher had up in her classroom because it didn't bother anyone else in the classroom so my feelings didn't matter.

I was taught as a kid that feelings are wrong and then it was a contradiction when I got told as an adult numerous times that everyone is entitled to their feelings. What? Even my mom told me I couldn't shut my feelings out and ignore them because I am entitled to them. yeah when I had them and got upset, I was in trouble and got yelled at and now you are telling me I am wrong for ignoring them and blocking them out pretending they are not there? Make up your f*****g minds people.

I believe that responsibility must be proportional to capacity/power.
One can not be responsible for anything outside of one's capacity.
On top of that, there are typically competing responsibilities.
For example, I am the person who is the most responsible for my own well-being. This entails things like spending long periods of time alone, usually avoiding talking on the phone etc. in order to not go completely nuts. It usually trumps things like 'the responsibility to hang out with a friend because they are so emotionally invested that their well-being is partially my responsibility', but I can't categorically renounce responsibility over something arbitrary like that unless it collides with other resonspibilites (which it may well do; so I'm not against shutting people out of one's life for example).
If what I said about someone else's well-being being one's responsibility because of their emotional investment sounds strange, consider this: let's assume you learn that there is a person who is MADLY in love with you. They are out of their mind in love and you could easily crush them through an insensitive choice of words. Though it would clearly be absurd to say that therefore you ought to marry the person (after all, your well-being is an important responsibility of yours) it is easy to see how you have more responsibility in terms of how you act towards this person - to whom you mean the world - than some random person.
Now, all of this is philosophical, and in practice, though I think a lot about such things and am very careful and really try to avoid hurting other people, I am often disappointing others passively. Everyday life is quite trying as it is, and someone "feeling a bit lonely" is rarely as important as dealing with one's own severe existential angst or some such thing.

As for how random people react to things (or vice versa, how random people influence me), that's a whole chapter of its own. I'd just briefly say that I am so used to people misunderstanding me that I do try to tailor my approach or response to others after the situation, albeit without impinging on my own integrity too much.

I know I might be stepping out of line speaking for Yigeren here but I don't think she meant that you can be charged with a crime for causing emotional distress. I believe she is saying here that if you are committing a crime such as violent assault and it causes distress to a witness you are culpable for the distress of the witnesses in addition to being guilty of whatever crime you perpetrated.

Kind of like if you are committing a crime, such as breaking and entering, or carjacking, or even trespassing, and somebody dies--even if you yourself didn't kill them you can still be tried for murder. You can be held culpable for murder if someone dies at the scene of a crime you are committing, even if that person was an accomplice of yours rather than an intended victim.

Yeah, this could become a rabbit trail. To put the thread back on track: I totally get what League Girl is saying. It's hard--probably harder for neurodiverse people like Aspies and Auties--to sort out the difference between being in trouble for reacting inappropriately or improperly expressing strong feelings, and being in trouble simply for having feelings. I think struggles with emotional regulation are a basic core symptom of ASD.

I personally even at the age of 47 still struggle sometimes with this. I waffle back and forth between feeling that I need to keep a rein on my despair and depression and anxiety because of the whole "if momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy" corollary, and on the other hand just thinking that if other people depend on me to boost their own happy by pretending that everything is lovely when I'm actually feeling crappy, that isn't mentally healthy for them to blame me. It's co-dependent and they need to just give me my freakin' space when I'm feeling moody.

I read not long ago that married men have a deep-seated need to feel that their wives are happy, that it's normal for men to feel that if their wives aren't happy it somehow means they are inadequate as husbands and providers or whatnot. Er? It seriously makes me wonder how generations of males have coped with having wives who struggle with depression. Is it normal? Or is it only co-dependent men who have this perceived need? Is it related to men's "need" for "respect" (whatever the effing eff respect is, I still don't have a working definition of that particular abstract concept)?

Sure that's cool, I was more discussing my understanding, not trying to step on any toes.



Actually this is an interesting point. In the UK, the term "murder" is more specific. In the US you have the degree system. In the UK "murder" is mostly equivalent to "first degree murder" in the US, second/third degree have different names like involuntary/voluntary manslaughter and culpable homicide. People used the degree system, can be confused by charges in Commonwealth countries.

Personally, I think it is better that crimes of a different nature have different names, but that is my 2p. I know the word "murder" is general term the people use, but there are legal distinctions to be made.

The accomplice thing, that is variable even in the US. Joint enterprise, and accessory to a crime are real thing in English law. However the idea if an of home invader being killed in self deference leads to an complacence being tried for his murder, this is something that hasn't happens in living memory. I know that some US state have this law, or simualr. I find it extremely odd, I don't really agree with it. How do you prove intent? I could understand them possibly being tried with attempted murder of the homeowner, if there is enough evidence.



Just becuase people aren't responsible, doesn't mean you should blame yourself.



Tbh I don't think this is exclusive to men. I have definitely heard of similar women. It is a personality type, rather that a general rule. It can be ok to want to make someone happy to some degree, if possible, however this can be taken way overboard, and it can become a codependent destructive cycle. The reality is we each have to take responsibility for looking after our own well being.

This was from a healthy marriages website and the articles were separated like this--there were ones on things women should/shouldn't do for their husbands, and opposite. One pair was X number of ways you are destroying your wife/husband and ruining your marriage. So they were definitely on gender lines and opposite gender roles and traditional marriage--if I recall correctly it was a religious site based on Biblical Christianity. Where it's just assumed that the man is the head of the household, and women need love and men need respect and such traditional ideas. There's a difference, though, between "wanting to make someone happy" and blaming another person for their bum moods keeping you from being happy.



Sorry, there's my American-centrism rearing its head again. You'd think after fifteen years I'd remember that the Internet is the World-wide web instead of constantly acting like the whole world is just like the U.S.!

I think this depends on locus of control.
People with internal locus will probably take more responsibility for their feelings and other aspects of their experience and circumstances.

I believe that I am 100% responsible for my own feelings.

My feelings are my own to contend with and, if I have felt hurt by the actions or words of another person, I most often attempt to gain a deeper understanding of myself and my own sensitivities.

On the other side of things, if someone were to tell me that something I had said or done had hurt their feelings, I would ponder and consider that, and I would happily attempt to tweak the way I approach or interact with the person, going forward. I care about the peace of mind, happiness and contentment of others. If someone I care about is happy, then, I am happy, and it doesn't have to be at the expense of my own happiness.

I've learned, through hard and bitter experience, that not only am I responsible for my feelings, but for everyone else's feelings also.