Cost/benefits analysis, or Do I Really Need To Be Nice To Aunt Lysa?

[perelynn]

‘Come on, let’s go visit Aunt Lysa,’ your family says to you.

Oh no, not again. You don’t really want to go see and be nice to a person whom you don’t particularly like. You don’t want to focus on something that is of no interest to you and promises no pleasure.

But your family insists. Aunt Lysa is a relative. You should treat relatives nicely. Because you want to behave like a civilized person. And, more importantly, it is implied that on some hypothetical rainy day, in a situation you can’t really imagine yet, Aunt Lysa may help you. You never know.

And that’s the catch.

Relationships are complicated. Especially relationships with people with whom we have prior history. Parents, spouses, in-laws, extended family like cousins, aunts and uncles twice removed. We are supposed to treat all of them with respect. The implication is always the same. ‘This is family. They love you. They’ll support you. When you’re in a tough corner, the family will help.’ The truth is, it’s not always so.

Of course, there are cases when the family thing just works. There are families where relatives truly care about each other and support each other no matter what. In such families, the problem of visiting Aunt Lysa is not a problem. Aunt Lysa is well-liked and respected as she is. Relatives don’t need to be forced to go see her.

Let’s talk about cases when things are not that great. Let’s talk about families where there is tension about the notion of help, love and support. Things just don’t add up. To get love, we are required to demonstrate the traits we don’t have. To get support, we must pretend we’re interested in something we aren’t. To get help, we have to be ready that the help will not be about us.

When this happens, it’s not necessarily because family members are bad people. They just have different values. Their values do not always align with ours.

In such cases, when we are asked to do something we don’t like it’s important to always ask ‘why? - and to make sure the answer is satisfactory. Why do I need to go visit Aunt Lysa, if I don’t like or respect her? Sometimes, there may be a legitimate answer. For some people, the legitimate answer would be ‘Because Aunt Lysa is dying, and if you go visit her now, she’ll leave you 3 million dollars.’

However, there are situation when the answer to the question ‘why?’ is simply not good enough. I need to go visit Aunt Lysa because she is a relative? So what? I’m her relative too. She should be nice to me and relieve me of the cumbersome demand to spend time on something utterly boring. Because on some hypothetical rainy day Aunt Lysa can help me? Well, how do I know that she will? That she even can? And, more importantly, how do I know the price?

It’s a curious thing, these promises of future help. They are contracts we’re supposed to sign blindly. Nobody can predict the future. Nobody can say what the help really would look like. Nobody knows what caveats it would include.

Nobody says upfront:

‘In 3 years, when you have your first child, Aunt Lysa will offer her babysitting services. This will look exactly like the rainy day that was implied, so you will accept. As time progresses, Aunt Lysa will become increasingly annoying, and her services increasingly less valuable. She won’t take feedback. She will ignore your opinion about the child’s upbringing. She will think babysitting entitles her to be judgemental and to interfere in other areas of your life.’

If nobody says it, how are you to know? When you hear promises of future help, how do you evaluate their validity?

This is where cost/benefits analysis comes in.

First, look for the red flags. With some people, red flags are already there at the time of the offer.

Aunt Lysa may already display some signs of being judgemental or some lack of respect for your time. Sometimes the flags are so huge and so brilliantly red, it makes it obvious you’ll never want any help from Aunt Lysa ever. In this case, the question ‘why?’ doesn’t have a satisfactory answer. You don’t have to go visit Aunt Lysa. You don’t like her, and that’s good enough reason not to pursue this relationship.

In many cases, however, things are not this obvious. Together with mildly annoying traits Aunt Lysa may possess a number of redeeming qualities, which make the future deal sound plausible. The arguments like ‘she is a relative’ and ‘you should behave nicely’ start sounding much more reasonable. As there is no way to predict the future, there is no way to decide one way or another. There is nothing to counterweight the social pressure. So, we go and visit the Aunt Lysa, albeit reluctantly.

How is it different, then, from just following the standard society rules?

The difference is, don’t follow them blindly. Every time when the request for our attention and time seems over the top, or a caveat is uncovered, the cost/benefit analysis is the tool to employ. Why am I doing this? What am I getting? Am I still reasonably sure I’m getting it? Or does the new caveat completely breaks the deal?

It may seem like a very counterintuitive, unemotional, calculating approach to relationships. But there are two things to keep in mind. First, the emotional approach is not always right. Our emotions are often irrational. They are definitely important and should be taken seriously, but they are not always representative of reality. (See ‘Let’s talk emotions’)

Second, this approach actually improves the relationships it is applied to. When we are not forced to interact with someone we don’t like or respect, we don’t accumulate the negative feeling coming from such interaction. Therefore, on the occasions when the answer to the question ‘why?’ is indeed satisfactory, the meeting with Aunt Lysa will happen without all the negative baggage dragged into it.

Of course, some Aunts Lysas will be so offended by your refusal to visit them that they will bring negativity to the meeting anyway. But then, do you really want a person in your life who doesn’t respect your choices, reasons and opinions? You must have a really good idea why.



(Картинка с Pinterest)

Comments

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

The wrong assumption here is that the help may only come from Aunt Lisa, whereas in reinforcing the expected family behavior of visiting and assisting all relatives you are also increasing the probability of help from Cousin Jane, who finds you boring and disagrees with your values, but will go along and move your refrigerator from Chicago to Kansas City anyway, because their mom says you're a relative.

[marstheinfomage.livejournal.com]

dammit, where's the Like button on this thing...

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

Doesn't the post explicitly state that the only case when Cousin Jane would go and move the refrigerator is if she knows what she is getting out of it? Which means, if the only thing you are is boring and disagreeable, there is no chance Cousin Jane will do it for you.

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Erm... no, it doesn't. It states that Cousin Jane _should_ only do it in that case _if_ the calculation is correct. In fact, the calculation is not correct. Cousin Jane is under as much social pressure to help relatives as you are, learned (partially from your example) that supporting relatives is A Thing We Do Here, and feels under an obligation to you, because you visited her favorite aunt (Lysa) - all these things are pushing her towards your refrigerator, and that push is a factor lacking in the original calculation.

Of course, you are not able to predict the future. You don't know whether Jane will help you. However, you know that by fostering a culture of support (for whatever reasons), you are increasing the likelihood of help for all relatives, so your expectation of help, while not certain, is higher.

*re-posted to keep inside the thread

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

At this point I (the author of the post) don`t really understand the situation you (the commenter) are describing and how it relates to my post.

If Cousin Jane was learning from my example, then the lesson she learned is not `Supporting Relatives is What We Do Here`. The lesson is 'Every time you're asked to do something you don't want to do / for a person you don't like, strive to understand the benefit you're getting from it. If the cost outweighs the benefits, don't do it.'

With this, the rest of the situation described by you (the commenter) falls apart.
What am I missing?

*re-posted for same reason

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

You're missing the point of my original comment, which was: "When considering the benefits of going to visit Aunt Lysa you should include not only the effect on Aunt Lysa and potential help from her as the result, but also the effect on other family members and potential help from them as the result"

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

Oh. I think I got it.

The problem that I see with this point is that it seems to focus on getting help 'for free'. (I use the quotes here, as the help is not, in fact, free at all.) The whole idea stands on the assumption that there no one in the world apart from family to whom you can turn for help. It basically tells you: 'nobody in the world gives a shit about you, but at least the family is bound to you by blood; so milk it for what it is, and suffer when you have to.'

This could have been true for centuries; it was still mostly true in Soviet Union. Your family was your connections. Your family your main chance to succeed in the world. Moreover, your time was worth nothing. Your pain was worth nothing. This approach was so common that nobody even thought there were other options available.

It doesn't mean this is the only way. Instead of relying on my family to do things for 'free' for me, I can hire help. Hired help has much, much less strings attached. Hired babysitter does not expect the child to love them for the rest of their lives, or the mother to listen to their views on American politics. Yes, hiring costs money. But dealing with toxic relatives costs health. Money is much, much cleaner transaction in comparison.

Another option: I can ask my friends to help me, a.k.a. the people I have chosen to be close with, whom I respect and whom I will help out of my own free will.

That's the thing. There are many options. If I choose to optimize my mental health, and not the money, dealing with Aunt Lysa is way too expensive for me.

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

No, not at all :) It's not the only way, of course.

But it is an additional way. If you like, think of it as an increase in the probability of getting help at all. You may not always have friends and/or money available at the moment you need them (ask me about the difficulty of finding a good babysitter available on an occasional basis ;) ) and, of course, earning money costs some mental health.
That said, the optimization function obviously still works out for you. :)

The post, however, seems to imply that it will work for everyone - it will not, since the relative cost (in mental health) of obtaining friends and money and making them available when needed is different for everyone.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

But that's the thing. The cost of mental health is there _in any case_.

Yes, you spend mental health on making friends. Yes, for some people it comes easier, for some it comes harder. Yes, you spend mental health on making money. Again, may be easier, may be harder.

However, dealing with one's family also require mental health. Moreover, there is a catch here. Dealing with family may seem cheaper, because they are readily available. They live in the same house as you. But what you gain in not having to go out looking, you may lose if the person you're trying to deal with has different values than you. The frustration that comes of it can easily eat a black hole in your mental health. It definitely can cost more than going out there and looking for someone with values similar to yours in the first place.

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're absolutely right, dealing with family requires mental health and it should be considered in its entirety. I fully agree with that. I think you are missing potential benefit, not potential cost, but overall I think we're in agreement.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

I have a suspicion I might have accounted for the potential benefits when I said `there are families where all this just works`.

The post was primarily about families where there are issues around help, love and support. Where the promises and assumptions do not match the reality.

But I`m glad to see we`re getting closer to agreement :)

[mme-n-b.livejournal.com]

:)

[doublle-troub.livejournal.com]

This post really helped me to fill up my linguistic luggage.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

:D
I need to write more in English, I know. Love the language.

[incipe.livejournal.com]

Is's wonderful when it's just some aunt Lysa, whom you can deny a visit... But my mom has to communicate with her own old mother, who can easily turn any talk into a flow of hysterical occusations and shout - and she cannot ignore her, because her pension is too little to survive and because she has serious difficulties dealing with modern reality. She can't leave her without help because she loves her despite all this shit.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

Is there a point you are trying to make? Could you please outline it more clearly?

[incipe.livejournal.com]

It's not always possible to use your approach in real life. Sometimes people have to do things that 1) they don't like 2) will never be compensated. And it's not necessarily the result of social pressure.
IMHO, of course.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

I don't see how your point is illustrated by the example you provided.

Here is what I see as per information you wrote:
1) There is woman who tends for her mother
2) The mother is not in a stable mental state

Here is information that is missing or unclear:
1) The woman's feeling about the state of affairs. In the example, you say that she loves the mother and is doing it willingly. In the next post you state she doesn't like it. Which one is the case?

2) Is the woman the only person caring for the mother? If yes, why? Are there any other relatives in the picture who could share this burden? If yes, why is she the only one doing it?

3) What tools and programs does the government provide for such cases in the country where the situation unfolds? Caring for seniors and sick is one of the functions of the state. What options were explored and tried?

It may be that the woman is caring for her mother de facto. However, de jure it is not really her responsibility. There is a difference between 'I am obliged to do it by law' and 'I choose to do it'.

Unfortunately, this is where the social pressure manifests itself the most, especially in case of women. Women are conditioned that caring for old people and children is fully their responsibility (somehow, the pressure is much less in case of men).

In case of the woman in the example, it may be that everyone _expects_ her to care for the mother, and she will be branded as uncaring, egoistic, stonehearted if she tried to lessen her burden by asking other relatives to help, or by exploring government tools like foster homes for seniors. And this would be totally social pressure.

[incipe.livejournal.com]

1) Both. My mother works a lot to earn for a living and constant quarells take hell of her strenght and health. That's why she really dislikes talking to her mom and especially visiting her - but she cannot leave her without help because she loves her and because she still CAN give her such help.
2) There is me and my unkle (her brother), but the second one does little good and much harm: he is a drunk and can be really dangerous.
3) It's in Russia:)

Of course, she does it because she chooses to do it, and to be honest, she never paid much attention to other people's expectations and accusations. So it's entirely her own moral choice.

[perelynn.livejournal.com]

Well, in this case I don't see how your example contradicts the topic of the post above. If anything, it confirms it. The woman made her choice, presumably with her eyes open and her judgement clear. She did her cost/benefits analysis. She knows why she is spending her resources and what she is getting for it. Feeling good about your own moral choices can definitely be counted among the benefits.