Framework for Care of Upset Person

Page 3 of 14 [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next

badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 3:28 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I disengage if what I'm offering isn't helpful or applicable.


Considering 100% of depressed people would refuse to change their false belief you would disengage every time? Is that right?

OK, let's imagine you and I are talking to 100 depressed people. You are talking to 50 and I'm talking to 50.

You are practicing your approach, never even mention factors I believe would help.
I'm practicing my approach, keep telling people to get some exercise, fresh air, improve their diet, etc.

You build rapport with these people, support them according to framework for care, etc. but in the end, still 0% of these people are aware that these factors are essential, retain their false beliefs and occasionally get depressed again and again.

What would rate of helpful outcomes of your participation be? 0%

Let's assume I just keep reminding people to be intensional about these factors every day, logically reason, trying to convince them and only 5 people accept it. These people recover in couple weeks and never get depressed again.
What would rate of of helpful outcomes would be? 10%? OK, let's assume this approach works/applicable for 50% of people, 5% still infinitely more than 0, isn't that better outcome?

Hmm, what about the rest? Well, these factors were not part of their conscious awareness, but after being reminded many times, it is now, they can't help it even if they don't immediately accept this idea. Let's say 10 more people experience random remission and their denial isn't a factor anymore, they consider this approach as valid and 50% of them recover too. That makes rate of helpful outcomes 15%, right?

Let's say 10 more people noticed correlation of their neglect of these factors and depressive episodes, because this information is now part their conscious awareness and their brain can recognize this pattern and connect the dots. They also consider this approach as valid and 50% of them recover too. That makes rate of helpful outcomes 25%, right?

I think this approach would be closer to 90% efficient, it would make rate of long-term helpful outcomes almost 50%

Hmm, I think even 1% would be a great result compared to 0%, what do you think? 25-45% is something worth trying to achieve or am I wrong?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,072
Location: Stendec

24 Oct 2021, 3:31 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Thanks to funeralxempire for posting it and identifying the author. It's been incorporated into the rules for The Haven: viewtopic.php?t=297515
In keeping in line with the OP's post, and seeing as how I am one of the least likely members to express sympathy for others (and to let the mods know that I understand and accept the new conditions), I suggest a few additions/elaborations:

• "Do not campaign for one's own beliefs" -- I shut off my sig line for this post, as it reflects my own political beliefs. I recommend that all sig lines be shut off when posting in The Haven from now on.

• "Do not hijack the thread" -- This should include a prohibition against jokes, satire, and other attempts at humor. When emotions run high, the OP's sense of humor may be shut off. A well-intentioned joke may be taken the wrong way and make the OP's situation worse.

• Refrain from any special or "artistic" effects when posting: no colored text (unless to emphasize a helpful link), no bold text, no blinking or flashing text, no centered text, et cetera. Minimize capitalization to proper names and the beginnings of sentences, as well.

• Images, videos, and "smilies" should be kept to a minimum, if used at all.

Comments?



babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 40,941
Location: UK

24 Oct 2021, 3:44 pm

Fnord wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Thanks to funeralxempire for posting it and identifying the author. It's been incorporated into the rules for The Haven: viewtopic.php?t=297515
In keeping in line with the OP's post, and seeing as how I am one of the least likely members to express sympathy for others (and to let the mods know that I understand and accept the new conditions), I suggest a few additions/elaborations:

• "Do not campaign for one's own beliefs" -- I shut off my sig line for this post, as it reflects my own political beliefs. I recommend that all sig lines be shut off when posting in The Haven from now on.

• "Do not hijack the thread" -- This should include a prohibition against jokes, satire, and other attempts at humor. When emotions run high, the OP's sense of humor may be shut off. A well-intentioned joke may be taken the wrong way and make the OP's situation worse.

• Refrain from any special or "artistic" effects when posting: no colored text (unless to emphasize a helpful link), no bold text, no blinking or flashing text, no centered text, et cetera. Minimize capitalization to proper names and the beginnings of sentences, as well.

• Images, videos, and "smilies" should be kept to a minimum, if used at all.

Comments?


I think you're right Fnord. It's not helpful to have the post flashing like a Christmas tree when someone could actually be in need of help.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 15,410
Location: I'm right here

24 Oct 2021, 3:59 pm

Fnord wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Thanks to funeralxempire for posting it and identifying the author. It's been incorporated into the rules for The Haven: viewtopic.php?t=297515
In keeping in line with the OP's post, and seeing as how I am one of the least likely members to express sympathy for others (and to let the mods know that I understand and accept the new conditions), I suggest a few additions/elaborations:

• "Do not campaign for one's own beliefs" -- I shut off my sig line for this post, as it reflects my own political beliefs. I recommend that all sig lines be shut off when posting in The Haven from now on.

• "Do not hijack the thread" -- This should include a prohibition against jokes, satire, and other attempts at humor. When emotions run high, the OP's sense of humor may be shut off. A well-intentioned joke may be taken the wrong way and make the OP's situation worse.

• Refrain from any special or "artistic" effects when posting: no colored text (unless to emphasize a helpful link), no bold text, no blinking or flashing text, no centered text, et cetera. Minimize capitalization to proper names and the beginnings of sentences, as well.

• Images, videos, and "smilies" should be kept to a minimum, if used at all.

Comments?


Those all seem like good guidelines.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 15,410
Location: I'm right here

24 Oct 2021, 4:02 pm

badRobot wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I disengage if what I'm offering isn't helpful or applicable.


Considering 100% of depressed people would refuse to change their false belief you would disengage every time? Is that right?

OK, let's imagine you and I are talking to 100 depressed people. You are talking to 50 and I'm talking to 50.

You are practicing your approach, never even mention factors I believe would help.
I'm practicing my approach, keep telling people to get some exercise, fresh air, improve their diet, etc.

You build rapport with these people, support them according to framework for care, etc. but in the end, still 0% of these people are aware that these factors are essential, retain their false beliefs and occasionally get depressed again and again.

What would rate of helpful outcomes of your participation be? 0%

Let's assume I just keep reminding people to be intensional about these factors every day, logically reason, trying to convince them and only 5 people accept it. These people recover in couple weeks and never get depressed again.
What would rate of of helpful outcomes would be? 10%? OK, let's assume this approach works/applicable for 50% of people, 5% still infinitely more than 0, isn't that better outcome?

Hmm, what about the rest? Well, these factors were not part of their conscious awareness, but after being reminded many times, it is now, they can't help it even if they don't immediately accept this idea. Let's say 10 more people experience random remission and their denial isn't a factor anymore, they consider this approach as valid and 50% of them recover too. That makes rate of helpful outcomes 15%, right?

Let's say 10 more people noticed correlation of their neglect of these factors and depressive episodes, because this information is now part their conscious awareness and their brain can recognize this pattern and connect the dots. They also consider this approach as valid and 50% of them recover too. That makes rate of helpful outcomes 25%, right?

I think this approach would be closer to 90% efficient, it would make rate of long-term helpful outcomes almost 50%

Hmm, I think even 1% would be a great result compared to 0%, what do you think? 25-45% is something worth trying to achieve or am I wrong?


I think you're again reducing things to oversimplifications in order to make things more favourable for the position you're espousing and then arguing as though that reflects reality.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 4:15 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I think you're again reducing things to oversimplifications in order to make things more favourable for the position you're espousing and then arguing as though that reflects reality.

Yes, this is obviously hypothetical oversimplified model. But reasoning derived from brute facts. I don't really see how theoretically long term rate of helpful outcomes of your participation can be anything but 0%.

What factors of your participation would contribute to long-term recovery of these people? theoretically?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 15,410
Location: I'm right here

24 Oct 2021, 4:50 pm

badRobot wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I think you're again reducing things to oversimplifications in order to make things more favourable for the position you're espousing and then arguing as though that reflects reality.

Yes, this is obviously hypothetical oversimplified model. But reasoning derived from brute facts. I don't really see how theoretically long term rate of helpful outcomes of your participation can be anything but 0%.

What factors of your participation would contribute to long-term recovery of these people? theoretically?


Well, considering how you've mischaracterized how I engage with people of course you'd reach that conclusion but I'm tired of engaging with your self-serving antagonism. It's not up to me to train you to be less of a churlish prick towards people when you attempt to help them and if you're not able to figure out how to avoid that outcome it won't be my problem.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 5:05 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Well, considering how you've mischaracterized how I engage with people of course you'd reach that conclusion but I'm tired of engaging with your self-serving antagonism. It's not up to me to train you to be less of a churlish prick towards people when you attempt to help them and if you're not able to figure out how to avoid that outcome it won't be my problem.


I'm not asking you to train me. Since you insist your approach is superior in terms of long term helpful outcomes, I would like to understand why.

e.g. one person gets depressed mostly due to build up of quinolinic acid in their brain, another due to poorly formulated vegan diet low in tryptophan. both wrongly believe they are depressed due to personal life issues.

What factors of your participation would contribute to consistent long term recovery of these two people? theoretically?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 15,410
Location: I'm right here

24 Oct 2021, 5:07 pm

badRobot wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Well, considering how you've mischaracterized how I engage with people of course you'd reach that conclusion but I'm tired of engaging with your self-serving antagonism. It's not up to me to train you to be less of a churlish prick towards people when you attempt to help them and if you're not able to figure out how to avoid that outcome it won't be my problem.


I'm not asking you to train me. Since you insist your approach is superior in terms of long term helpful outcomes, I would like to understand why.

e.g. one person gets depressed mostly due to build up of quinolinic acid in their brain, another due to poorly formulated vegan diet low in tryptophan. both wrongly believe they are depressed due to personal life issues.

What factors of your participation would contribute to consistent long term recovery of these two people? theoretically?


If I throw you a fish will you leave?


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 5:19 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
badRobot wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Well, considering how you've mischaracterized how I engage with people of course you'd reach that conclusion but I'm tired of engaging with your self-serving antagonism. It's not up to me to train you to be less of a churlish prick towards people when you attempt to help them and if you're not able to figure out how to avoid that outcome it won't be my problem.


I'm not asking you to train me. Since you insist your approach is superior in terms of long term helpful outcomes, I would like to understand why.

e.g. one person gets depressed mostly due to build up of quinolinic acid in their brain, another due to poorly formulated vegan diet low in tryptophan. both wrongly believe they are depressed due to personal life issues.

What factors of your participation would contribute to consistent long term recovery of these two people? theoretically?


If I throw you a fish will you leave?


Since you insist your approach is superior in terms of long term helpful outcomes, I would like to understand why. What makes you believe I'm doing something wrong or bad.

e.g. one person gets depressed mostly due to build up of quinolinic acid in their brain, another due to poorly formulated vegan diet low in tryptophan. both wrongly believe they are depressed due to personal life issues.

What factors of your participation would contribute to consistent long term recovery of these two people? theoretically?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 15,410
Location: I'm right here

24 Oct 2021, 5:27 pm

Image


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

24 Oct 2021, 5:34 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Image

funeralxempire wrote:
Your attempts at helping and their actual impacts on the person seeking emotional support are well-documented for their non-helpful outcomes and approach.

All I'm asking is to explain what makes you believe rate of helpful outcomes of your approach would be higher. Theoretically it is 0%, I've explained why above.

I would like to hear out some valid points, not meaningless accusations and attacks.

But yes, I will adopt this framework if it would prove being helpful at increasing rate of acceptance of advice like doing HIIT burpees every day and will do my best to repeat step 3 every 20-30 minutes as you recommend. Thank you for posting.



EdCase
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Location: Limbo

25 Oct 2021, 2:37 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Quote:
Framework for Care of Upset Person:
2) Validate emotion. Even if the other person is being 'unreasonable' to you, or their emotional state doesn't make sense after you've asked several questions, that does not mean it is invalid to them. Their emotions need to be recognized as valid and having good reason from their perspective, which may include information or experiences you are unaware of and/or they can't really explain. Most conflict escalations come from emotions not being recognized as valid like this.


This is the step I personally really struggle with. I get that it may feel valid for them but I don't understand it.
What if I know they're wrong? I don't believe that emotions are always trustworthy and I struggle to blindly validate them.

Many people tell themselves things that aren't true for the situation they're in, based on some kind of trigger to another event. i.e. they have been cheated on before, so maybe they smell perfume or something on their partner.
This escalates into all of the emotions they felt in a completely different situation and they may well be wrong about the current situation. They may tell themselves that the partner is having an affair, then they remember a time where the partner looked at someone and then it means they 'know' the person the partner is having the affair with. They think about the last time the partner worked late or missed some event because of work, then they 'connect the dots' and the partner deliberately chose to miss the event because they were banging that floozy, and it keeps escalating in their head when there may be a perfectly simple explanation. Maybe they were buying perfume for a birthday that was coming up and someone next to them was a bit careless with a test spray.

No that example hasn't happened to me. It's just an example. I hope you see my point though. I think I'm awful at being around emotional people because of my attitude. My sense of right and wrong, accuracy, truth etc. makes it hard to just accept the emotion as valid, unless I have the information/facts and can see that it is.

I do appreciate that the feeling of the emotion even based on incorrect information isn't wrong exactly (there is a logic to it), I just struggle when people can't apply a bit of critical thinking sometimes or try and get some facts before they go off on an emotional outburst that could have been avoided and would have been a lot less painful for those involved (I'm aware people lie too).

I know my view isn't 'woke', but there it is.

If I go with my natural view, then I'm a di*k. I would be inauthentic with most other responses, which I'd rather not be. I find saying nothing works sometimes (I have been seen as a good listener :roll: ), sometimes that's absolutely the wrong thing to do. Impossible.

My cluelessness in this regard is lifelong and linked to my autism. I don't even think its fair to expect me to be good at this approach (talking just generally here), even with some guidelines I could try to remember.

BTW I haven't been in to the Haven before and will probably avoid it, because I don't like upsetting people, even though I do seem to quite regularly (not in WP I hope, I try to be careful). Comments above are about real life.


_________________
ASD (Lvl2), ADHD Inattentive Moderate


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

25 Oct 2021, 5:59 am

EdCase wrote:
I know my view isn't 'woke', but there it is.

If I go with my natural view, then I'm a di*k. I would be inauthentic with most other responses, which I'd rather not be. I find saying nothing works sometimes (I have been seen as a good listener :roll: ), sometimes that's absolutely the wrong thing to do. Impossible.

My cluelessness in this regard is lifelong and linked to my autism. I don't even think its fair to expect me to be good at this approach (talking just generally here), even with some guidelines I could try to remember.

BTW I haven't been in to the Haven before and will probably avoid it, because I don't like upsetting people, even though I do seem to quite regularly (not in WP I hope, I try to be careful). Comments above are about real life.


I don't think anyone who offers actually helpful solution is a di*k.

I'm tired of 'woke' people who just offer comfort, sometimes contributing to reenforcing negative beliefs, making situation worse, but never make any attempts to address the real problem.

I wouldn't mind what they are doing if they would not attack people trying to help. Would not claim moral superiority while their actions do not truly help anyone.

Imagine there is a fire in the building and people attending meeting of conspiracy theorists refuse to evacuate believing fire alarm is another deceptive attempt of government to shut them down. These people are really upset about attempts of government to stop them.

First person stands outside at safe distance, offering "emotional support" holding a poster: "I'm with you! Don't give up! You concerns are valid! Don't be mad at yourself, it is normal to be upset when you are oppressed by the government!" for these conspiracy theorists to to see from the window. Never ever even acknowledging the fact that building is on fire, never ever trying to convince these people to evacuate.

Second person kicks out the door and tries to drag these people outside sometimes against their will, once they are outside they can see the that building is really on fire.

The first person then proceeds to attacks the second for being "insensitive di*k", blaming him and his approach for failure to save people some of whom resisted even harder because they were motivated by that very poster of the first person.

They use absurd arguments like: "Repeatedly telling people to evacuate and use fire exits is f*****g insensitive, according to stats fire exits don't save all people, some people get injured using fire exit, people with disabilities can't use fire exits", etc.

Even when the second person can't save them all and manages to drag out only 1 out of 10, his actions help 1 out of 10
Actions of the first person always help 0, if we count people who could be saved if they were not motivated to resist by his poster, this number becomes negative.

Who is trying to help people and who is the real di*k here?



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,176

25 Oct 2021, 7:38 am

funeralxempire wrote:
I'd suggest the location of a thread is a strong indication of what the poster is after. If one wants primarily advice there's multiple subforums for that, one of which will likely be suitable for their post. If they're posting in The Haven they're communicating that support is desired.


Good point. When I started using the forum, I stayed clear of the Haven (and PPR), not even reading anything here, due to the rules here seeming complicated compared to the rest of the forum. Maybe I should return to that policy.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

25 Oct 2021, 8:23 am

Fireblossom wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I'd suggest the location of a thread is a strong indication of what the poster is after. If one wants primarily advice there's multiple subforums for that, one of which will likely be suitable for their post. If they're posting in The Haven they're communicating that support is desired.


Good point. When I started using the forum, I stayed clear of the Haven (and PPR), not even reading anything here, due to the rules here seeming complicated compared to the rest of the forum. Maybe I should return to that policy.


I don't find this approach correct in general. This is a moral dilemma. Depressed poster always after confirmation of their negative beliefs, this is vicious circle of depression. Blindly and unconditionally following this approach means a lot of people end up stuck in "The Haven" forever without any hope to improve.