#issendai

[drethelin]

Criticism avoidance guarantees that people will have strained relationships. No one wants to be around someone who can't bear to talk out problems, who can't remember being told anything she doesn't like, who goes around saying she has no idea why people are so mean to her. It also guarantees that if the solution to a problem is "See what you're doing wrong and fix it," the problem will never be solved. It's no surprise that criticism-avoidant people end up divorced and estranged more often than the general populace.

Down the Rabbit Hole The world of estranged parents' forums

[welkinalauda]

How do you keep a lover or employee bound to you? You create a sick system.

So you want to keep your lover or your employee close. Bound to you, even. You have a few options. You could be the best lover they've ever had, kind, charming, thoughtful, competent, witty, and a tiger in bed. You could be the best workplace they've ever had, with challenging work, rewards for talent, initiative, and professional development, an excellent work/life balance, and good pay. But both of those options demand a lot from you. Besides, your lover (or employee) will stay only as long as she wants to under those systems, and you want to keep her even when she doesn't want to stay. How do you pin her to your side, irrevocably, permanently, and perfectly legally?

You create a sick system.

[2snoots2furrious-blog]

The members of estranged parents' forums claim their children cut them off for no reason, but their own postings say otherwise.

btw, if you want a fun read of crazy people, may I suggest the above.

[thestorycontinues]

..."emotion creates reality," is truth for a great many people. Not a healthy truth, not a truth that promotes good relationships, but a deep, lived truth nonetheless. It's seductive. It means that whatever you're feeling is just and right, that you're never in the wrong unless you feel you're in the wrong.

http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html

[jllongwrites]

Claiming that their story idea is new and fresh and the very first story that contains element X is a hobby for self-published SF&F authors, right up there beside claiming that their book transcends the genre/fits into a dozen unrelated genres and that it's just like totally unrelated book Z. You could turn it into Self-Publishing Bingo, with 'Traditional publishers won't touch my work because it's too edgy!' as the free square at the center.

Although the linked blog post was inspired by Jaq D. Hawkins’ Dance of the Goblins, it contains a lot of great general advice for writing and marketing books in the fantasy genre.

(On a side note, Hawkins’ reaction to the book review series is pretty much a master class in How Not to Respond to Criticism.)

[rollingpenny]

Stages of denial

Some interesting notes on the stages of denial from here

Barrett and Trepper, in an article in the Family Therapy Networker (now the Psychotherapy Networker) in 1992, pointed out that families have multiple layers of denial, which often come out in the same order. As one breaks through each of these resistances, the next one pops up in its place. The presence of these many stages of denial is not a reason to avoid attempting to metacommunicate. The presence of multiple resistances represents multiple problems to be solved, not multiple reasons for giving up. [....] Barrett and Trepper’s predictable stages of denial are as follows: 1. Denial of facts (“it never happened; you’re a liar!”), followed by: 2. Denial of awareness (“I was drunk,” or “I didn’t realize I was neglecting you; you should have told me”), followed by: 3. Denial of responsibility (“You were the one who was seductive,” or “If your mother didn’t deny me, I wouldn’t have to have turned to you.”) and finally: 4. Denial of impact (“It only happened a few times,” or “It was only fondling,” or “OK, so I beat you. Why do you always have to dwell on the past? You’re just too sensitive; get over it!”).

...Yep, I've seen all of that.

The way of my people is to skip stage 1 and go straight to stage 2: "I don't remember." Neat, effective, keeps you arguing about whether or not they remember rather than focusing on the issue at hand. It also puts the power in their court because they can disremember anything inconvenient for as long as they like.

Someone online came up with a great reply: "I do remember, so we'll have to go by my memories." I haven't had a chance to use it, but my prediction is that when the power abruptly shifts to the other person's court, the person in denial will find their amnesia miraculously cured.