Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

I'm very experienced with the opposing views .. and I find it increasingly difficult to assume that they're both held in good faith and also willing to take my views as held in good faith.

There's a "iterated prisoner's dilemma" thing going on, where the side that plays "defect" all the time has got the upper hand.

View on HN

Yes to the "defect" thought. Learning about Karpman's triangle[0] helped me understand this. In conflict, people flit between three identities: the villain who tries to force their way, the hero who tries to save the situation, and the victim who accepts loss and points out their difficulties. And everyone's trying to be the victim because that's who ultimately gets their way, through manipulating the "don't kick someone when they're down" mentality. Fascinating stuff, and now that I've seen it I just can't unsee it almost everywhere.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

I should add that the tendency of adopting the hero role ("let bygones be bygones, but we need to get this done") isn't ideal since it leaves a power imbalance in its wake. A more effective response lies in Nonviolent Communication,[0] so saying, "When you say this I feel this because I value this. Would you be willing to do this?" This way emotions are managed and both parties begin exiting the dialogue understanding each other, and on equal footing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

And then I tell you that I am not responsible for your feelings, you are. Which is very common thing to say these days. Or I say you that you are oversensitive and emotional.

I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.

You're right. In the case of a narcissist or someone looking to argue (or someone very emotionally invested and stirred up), the "broken pop machine" method is better. They try to press your buttons but you don't react, saying things like, "Gee, I can't help you with that," and they eventually disengage.

Applying Karpman's triangle assumes both parties genuinely want to (and can) move forward.

Nonviolent communication seems to be reasonably popular here, but I must admit that that quote comes of as extremely condescending and manipulative to me.

I have found it helps assuming kindness and sincerity from the other end. When this works, it works well.

I was reminded of this thought: "No matter how considerate you are, or how much effort you put into avoiding my triggers, the total freedom in the world does not increase until I learn to release the grip they have on me." (https://twitter.com/RichDecibels/status/1197769030880419841)

The KDT is a brilliant insight, but it only really works if people have some ability to distance from a situation and their own emotional framing of it.

I recently dropped a link to the KDT into a rather mad online flame war that took a Facebook forum by surprise.

It may have made a few participants stop and think, but overall it was a low EQ mistake and didn't go well. I don't recommend it.

We live in crazy times. No one takes any argument that they don't agree at good faith. It is all about the zinger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com