Method and Madness Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am in a fairly unique position; I have observed a specific behavioral trend that has become undeniably significant. That is to say, I'm quite certain I am looking at something real. However, what that something is remains a mystery. The behavior itself is straightforward, but the question of how it works is still obscure. In a more clinical or laboratory-oriented setting, the next obvious thing to do would be formal data collection. I need to start mapping out the behavior itself. Here's the problem: It requires spending every minute one is in a room with another person to involve carrying some sort of data recorder. At later stages, it will probably require carrying that data recorder in pretty much any interpersonal setting for some sort of control or countervalent consideration. The behavioral issue in question has a lot of history; that much I already know. But it is disruptive, and to phrase that disruption specifically― The subject cannot have a conversation without changing the subject in order to tell the other what to do in an otherwise irrelevant context. ―not only sounds simplistic, but the subject would protest the description; a side complication is that any suggestion that might be perceived by the subject as accusing wrongdoing or error by the subject must be presupposed indicative of the observer's inadequate observation and interpretation. This latter is actually what triggers the primary inquiry. I am presently witness to a complete communication breakdown between two people, and while the other can reasonably be said to be committing any number of mistakes, depending on one's outlook, the subject of this inquiry displays consistent behavior bordering on belligerence, as if trying, for some unknown reason, to disrupt interpersonal relations and create hostility, frustration, and dispute. Colloquially, we can often be heard to say that a particular frustration a person expresses is their own problem, as in, sure, we can see the point but they're doing it to themselves. And trying to find a starting point? The problem with figuring out who started it is that if a situation goes on long enough―e.g., decades―it no longer matters how it started. Furthermore, relationship type matters; the subject is empowered by traditional relationship archetype, the other is empowered by unaccounted factors that would be listed as a counterweight or counterinfluence to the archetype. There is plenty to observe, and we all know I'm not about to solve any great human mystery. But I can see right into one part of what is going on, and, really, setting aside the lamentation that it really does come to this, well, don't you think it would be awkward―i.e., enough to influence immediate behavior―to have me sitting around with a clipboard or something ticking off an obscure note in some way that would seem random to you? I have observational access, but also potential levers of influence simply by trying to collect data. Those potentials must be diminished as much as possible. The question is how. Otherwise there is no point. I'm observing the situation at all because normal interpersonal relations between these two have utterly collapsed, and I know the trigger point. And both will simply move on and pretend it never happened, since that is all the one will accept. It's the only way. This much I am already aware of. But communication is not restarting and rebuilding; focus is sharpening, rhetoric is hardening. And I may not be able to actually do anything, and especially about what comes before, but as I hear this incredibly dysfunctional dialogue taking place, at least one specific trend has emerged. The subject of my inquiry can't seem to stop issuing admonition and instruction―attempting to exercise some sort of authority in every conversation, even changing the subject in order to do so―and the other is simply walking away from all such discussions. And as I'm watching what is otherwise a seemingly mundane human experience, I'm also witness to a behavioral pattern asserting itself with exceptional consistency. In order for this cycle to break, one of two things must happen: The subject must stop constantly asserting authority, or, The other must simply give over and submit at all times. The subject's ego defense, superficially, at least, is pretty straightforward: denial (not behaving that way), intellectualization (good reason for behaving that way), rationalization (behaving this way is actually good and helpful), and flip a coin between basic regression (reasserting relationship archetype) or some unidentified sublimation (e.g., achieving unrelated goal through assertion relationship archetype)―this latter cannot be resolved unitl the behavior is adequately acknowledged in order to explore it. The way to address this is also straightforward. To wit: Look, you had fourteen conversations with the other, yesterday; you pursued the other in four of those conversations; every conversation either started or turned within three exchanges to what you thought that person should be doing and why it should be done right now. We are near to one hundred percent consistency on this behavior. Whatever else is going on in this unfortunate situation, I can tell you one thing both observationally and personally: When it gets to the point that a person cannot even use the restroom without someone hunting them down to tell them what they should be doing right now, that person will simply stop listening. Not a single conversation. Not about the news headlines, the beautiful sunset, the song on the radio, whatever. Not a single conversation can occur without the subject telling the other what to do, some version of how to do it, and when to do it (i.e., right now). Real example: Go to work. Okay, but there is no work right now. Go do this job. But there is no work order for this job. Go do it anyway. Look, it's a nice day. You can be done and home in time for dinner. Seriously. Can't get a cup of coffee without being harangued to go to a customer's house to do work that hasn't been ordered and then try to charge for it. How is this a rational conversation? In the end, it's one of those "stop and smell the roses" thing. Except roses aren't meant to be smelled. They're meant for the neighbors to see, or something. Those parts are mysterious. But there is an immediate behavior to be addressed, and the only way to do that is with raw numbers because there is no future in shouting at a wall of denial. Still, though, questions of method and ethic abound. This isn't like counting red or black jackets in the town square, but sitting around in someone's living room with some sort of data collection system, which is mighty conspicuous to the one, thus altering the data collected, and also rather quite questionable in reducing human psychology to zoological observational standards. Who wouldn't be uncomfortable with me sitting in the corner, ticking and scribbling data seemingly at random? But I'm as certain of what I'm seeing as I ever will be, and rarely is a device like this put so openly into view, or so near that I can reach out and grab hold of it. I see this part of what is going on. I see what needs to happen. My only idea for how to make it happen is ethically dubious, methodologically fraught, and carries high risk for exacerbating disruption. That disruption, unfortunately, is almost requisite, but its specific form and general degree require some management. There are alternatives, I suppose, most of which involve just wondering what happens next and how long before the disruption is irreconcilable. But neither should I blow it all to hell trying to help. And this is more complicated than clicking a button every time something happens; a certain amount of contextual data is essential.
I understand, Tiassa. That's a real bitch, and I don't know how to address it either. It's not damned if you do, damned if you don't: You're almost damned for daring to think there's a solution. (Other than dueling pieces at ten paces...)
This sounds as if some type of medication might be needed. Has anything yet been administered to the subjects? What was it? If nothing has been given could something be tried? What is there that you could use? I'd say this sounds like subjects that need a dose of LSD or other hallucinogenic that could alter their ways of thinking.
