When couples fight, they are so physiologically stressed — increased heart rate, cortisol in the bloodstream, perspiring, etc. — that it is impossible for them to have a rational discussion. With one couple, we intentionally stopped their argument about a recurring issue by saying we needed to adjust some of our equipment. We asked them to read magazines for 30 minutes before resuming the conversation. When they did so, their bodies had physiologically calmed down, which allowed them to communicate rationally and respectfully. We now teach that method to couples — if you feel yourself getting overwhelmed during a fight, take a break and come back to it later, even if that means sleeping on it. (
It's called thinking twice and changing the subject. I wouldn't say all of this is emotional though, but is sometimes premeditated to exhibit the worst of opponents, letting them make your case for you. The other purpose is to sidestep defense and reason by personalizing and making it all about them when lacking a case to be made.
I think those are all reasons *for* the delay. The biggest haters aren't really interested in a civil debate about the subject since the most angry responses were driven by misreading his viewpoints and identifying any sympathy for those who are romantically challenged with some kind of support for forcible redistribution of sex. Without those voices there might be a better chance of communicating with people open to hearing what he actually is saying.
I look forward to those posts since I think you usually have interesting and insightful things to say. While the mechanism from the couples fight might not be as relevant because the furor is largely the result of people performatively showing off their identity the news cycle and many people's attention will have moved on so I hope you are right about a change in the participants for a more civil debate.
But glad to see you are coming back to this issue. I for one applaud you for doing it.
You had a bigger stage in those more-heated moments and now your biggest haters have mostly moved on to the next thing - and for those folks' purposes, you didn't respond at all. But this is a great tactic, generally.
It's called thinking twice and changing the subject. I wouldn't say all of this is emotional though, but is sometimes premeditated to exhibit the worst of opponents, letting them make your case for you. The other purpose is to sidestep defense and reason by personalizing and making it all about them when lacking a case to be made.
I think those are all reasons *for* the delay. The biggest haters aren't really interested in a civil debate about the subject since the most angry responses were driven by misreading his viewpoints and identifying any sympathy for those who are romantically challenged with some kind of support for forcible redistribution of sex. Without those voices there might be a better chance of communicating with people open to hearing what he actually is saying.
I look forward to those posts since I think you usually have interesting and insightful things to say. While the mechanism from the couples fight might not be as relevant because the furor is largely the result of people performatively showing off their identity the news cycle and many people's attention will have moved on so I hope you are right about a change in the participants for a more civil debate.
But glad to see you are coming back to this issue. I for one applaud you for doing it.
Best of luck, you'll need it.
You had a bigger stage in those more-heated moments and now your biggest haters have mostly moved on to the next thing - and for those folks' purposes, you didn't respond at all. But this is a great tactic, generally.