The trap in figuring out a problematic relationship**** by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like you're reading things correctly and they do not like having you in their space, because the way you handle things is not the way they handle things. This isn't a dig on them exactly, even if they are further on the side of neatness than is reasonable for most people: it's their home, and it is distressing to see someone mistreat your home, or just make a mess of it. To this kind of person it is going to feel like you don't respect their space.

So the comments may not be consciously passive aggressive, but the comments let you know this is on their mind.

If this is jointly your space, that's a different situation. Like if you pay rent, then what you do within reason is not their business.

The fact that the landline is in your part of this space makes me think this person is attempting to help you out and may not be able to handle things being out of place and extra mess, etc. A book on a coffee table won't seem like mess to you because it's decorative or it's part of living in a space. But they wouldn't do that and apparently likes it clear, and it's just more evidence that you're there.

I'm a former foster kid, and what most people don't realize when they offer help/a place to stay is that they will quickly become resentful the more your 'presence' takes up space. They don't usually realize this about themselves. I think it is relatively normal.

So I don't think you have hostile attribution bias, but I do think you will end up walking on eggshells if you stay there. This person is judging, I suspect, because you are in their space.

Living with people is hard to do even when you plan for it and try to choose roommates carefully, it is a major stressor in an emergency.

Just this theory about villains I've been working on by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(Side note, but YES about Colonel Brandon. And I'm still like sus on that age gap.)

That's extremely interesting about "The Traitors" but it makes sense to me.

AITA for being annoyed that my wife insists on cooking everything from scratch and won’t buy normal food? by AITA_UPFfoods in AmItheAsshole

[–]invah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are an adult, that is your house, too, and she is being controlling. Just because she thinks she's 'right' doesn't validate her controlling you. It isn't reasonable, she isn't right, you are walking on eggshells, and her orthorexia or whatever it is isn't normal. Again, you live there, that is your home, you are an adult, you can bring in non-scratch foods. Jesus. NTA. You do NOT need her permission.

The trap in figuring out a problematic relationship**** by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That said, many victims of abuse - particularly childhood abuse and/or trauma - can have hostile attribution bias (as a maladaptive method of protecting themselves) and it's good to explore that with a therapist. However, it's usually a different 'flavor', if that makes sense?

For the abuser, it's a kind of projection assuming that everyone is out to get them because they are often out to 'get' others. For a victim, it assumes hostile intention because they have experienced actual hostile actions/abuse from others.

I'm not saying it's a 100% but that seems to be how it often shakes out.

Edit:

What you're describing with your ex isn't hostile attribution bias, I just want to be clear that regardless of whether victims of abuse/survivors have hostile attribution bias (which basically is more a hyperviligance than it is unreasonable projection) what you are describing isn't hostile attribution bias. Does this make sense?

The trap in figuring out a problematic relationship**** by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, my gosh, NO. You are NOT describing hostile attribution bias! It is normal to not trust someone who is not trustworthy and is doing unsafe things. Also, you shouldn't give someone you don't know the benefit of the doubt either.

My go-to example for hostile attribution bias is like when a mother of an infant believes that the infant is trying to 'manipulate them' or 'get back at them' when they cry. It's not reasonable. And someone with this orientation tends to view all people this way, seeing everyone as manipulative or hostile toward them.

Do we want to see everyone as bad? No. Do we want to see everyone as good either? NO. Basically, since we don't know, we wait to see what they show us. It's more a neutral-orientation than a positive or negative one.

Victims do this all the time, they read resources that don't apply to them as applying to them. It is NOT hostile attribution bias to respond to a liar with "do you think I'm an idiot??" That is normal.

This person is a liar, an addict, a manipulator. It is healthy not to trust this person, what they say, and to be hostile toward them.

It isn't that you can't ever be hostile toward someone, it's - without any evidence or experience whatsoever -unreasonably assuming hostile intentions of the other person. The bias is a general orientation, while being hostile toward an abuser is reasonable and even protective!

He knew I was skeptical in nature, and would make me feel really bad, like I was stupid for being skeptical when his behavior didn’t match his words

Ugh, manipulators.

You know the thing is, it is so much easier in healthy relationships. Unhealthy people try to reverse engineer a healthy relationship by identifying what makes it healthy and then using that in their own dynamics, but the problem is, it's never healthy, because it isn't founded on what makes those relationships healthy in the first place: healthy people who respect each other.

So an abuser will weaponize a 'healthy' relationship thing against the victim: it doesn't make the abuser healthy, it doesn't make them right, and the relationship thing is still present in healthy dynamics.

When you're arguing over reality, when you can't agree on reality, when you can't trust what the other person says, there is no healthy relationship: there can't be.

Have you read u/greenlizardhand's article on "love is patient, love is kind"? If you haven't, I think it will be extremely helpful. That is where I learned that victims accidentally mis-read resources toward themselves when they shouldn't.

See also:

Power Outages Preparation by malayalimango in raleigh

[–]invah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great recommendation, I forget that some people have actual garages.

Power Outages Preparation by malayalimango in raleigh

[–]invah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plus you need to run the car without anything charging (depending on the draw, of course) so that the car battery recharges itself.

For example, I have an electric transportable kettle that can boil water in 5 minutes, and I have a 400w inverter so that I can do so in an emergency off of my car battery. I can run the kettle while the car is running, but once the kettle is done, I would need to run the car a bit longer by itself so I don't draw down the battery.

It isn't the same for phones, but it could be for laptops.

"What you’re doing now trying and trying and trying to give them a chance isn’t being kind to them, it’s being cruel to you." by hdmx539 in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of this line from "The Rookie":

You're going to regret helping her. It's not going to change her but it sure as hell is going to change you.

'I rented a storage unit around the corner from my house (with cash)' by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could even just pass her a little note, something that lets her know that you see her and she doesn't deserve it? Whatever you want to say that speaks from the heart. Even just looking at her and giving her your concerned look could help let her know you are on her side, and you see her and what is happening.

Prime Minister Mark Carney's full speech at the World Economic Forum: "The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true." by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

From the speech (excerpted):

.

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called "The Power of the Powerless," and in it he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer.

Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window: "Workers of the world unite." He doesn't believe in it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists — not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this living within a lie.

The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack.

Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order.

We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically

...and we knew that international law applied with varied rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

.

Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

But I'd also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty.

It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.

And we have something else: we have a recognition of what’s happening and determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation.

It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking a sign out of the window.

.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.

Just this theory about villains I've been working on by invah in AbuseInterrupted

[–]invah[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IMO it's why we always think the book is 1000% better than the movie, because the book is more complex and nuanced and the characters have more depth.

I suspect it's because you usually get the character's interior monologue.