Red flags & Dealbreakers

John F Dean wrote:Hi Jordan,

It is amazing how the family platitudes that we hear so often ...and often a free with ...are actually opposites.   Consider ...

“ Any job worth doing is worth doing right.”

“ I doesn’t matter is you succeed or fail, you have got to try.”

If taken to the edge, the first ends up with a bunch of problems not addressed, the the second ends up with a bigger mess being made of those problems.

I have often been amazed at how we for some reason tend to think that just because there is an old  saying, it must be true.

"Flaunt it if you've got it."
    Having it in no way justifies flaunting it.
"In for a penny, in for a pound."
    Sunk Coast fallacy.
"Silence is golden."
    What if every person in the world heeded this?
"A stitch in time saves nine."
    In relation to the previous one, what if speaking up sooner rather than later could prevent more problems? Silence wouldn't be very golden then, would it?

There's a saying I've been hearing a lot lately that really bugs me because everyone seems to think it's true when there's actually no correlation, it just sounds like there is because it's an old saying. If I can remember it I'll try to post it later.

Bethany - lying isn't a typical bpd symptom/issue/whatever. That's more of a narcissist issue. BPD can get better, NPD rarely do.

There's a saying I've been hearing a lot lately that really bugs me because everyone seems to think it's true when there's actually no correlation, it just sounds like there is because it's an old saying. If I can remember it I'll try to post it later.

I remembered!

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

So, people never intentionally do anything bad? It's always due to incompetence? I think not.

""Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

So, people never intentionally do anything bad? It's always due to incompetence? I think not."

I think this one is meant to be more along the lines of "don't assume someone did something malicious on purpose when it could have just been stupidity' or something along those lines.  Like, if you asked your partner to do the dishes and you came home and they still weren't done, you might be prone to thinking they just don't care/doesn't like you enough to bother or purposefully wasted their time doing something else instead, when really they probably just got distracted and totally forgot, but their intention wasn't to do that.  Stuff like that.  So it's more like.. don't jump to the conclusion that someone's out to get you right off the bat ... it might have just been a mistake.  Communication breakdown or innocent mistake instead of malicious intent, type thing.

I totally hear ya, though, it does sound pretty wrong if you go with the 'everything is incompetence and nothing is purposely done maliciously' angle!

Yes, it could certainly be due to incompetence. It's also a false dichotomy, as you point out it could be due to other things like forgetfulness. It's the "Never" that makes it an absolute statement. The way I generally see it used by people, they are encouraging apathy, or at least trying to justify it on their part.

Jordan Holland wrote:

There's a saying I've been hearing a lot lately that really bugs me because everyone seems to think it's true when there's actually no correlation, it just sounds like there is because it's an old saying. If I can remember it I'll try to post it later.

I remembered!

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

So, people never intentionally do anything bad? It's always due to incompetence? I think not.

...........

Yes, it could certainly be due to incompetence. It's also a false dichotomy, as you point out it could be due to other things like forgetfulness. It's the "Never" that makes it an absolute statement. The way I generally see it used by people, they are encouraging apathy, or at least trying to justify it on their part.

I look at that one a little differently than you do.  I actually agree with the statement. You seem to take the statement as meaning it's never malice, where I take it to mean you should never start with that assumption.  "Never attribute to malice..." is good advice in my mind.  There can certainly be malice involved, but starting with the assumption of malice tends to blind people to the other possibilities.  I find it fitting because I know people that always start with the assumption of malice, and I think they are wrong more often than not.  I think that incompetence is far more prevalent than malice, so I'm probably better off to make that assumption.  I try to never attribute anything to malice initially.  If I find out later that I was wrong, I can proceed differently from that point forward.

The problem with the statement is the extreme way it's stated - NEVER believe anything that uses the word "never"! Or "always".

My husband has a massive issue with the attributing malice thing. No matter what, he assumes something that had a hurtful effect was done deliberately to be hurtful, and he spends a lot of time ruminating on past events and seeing them from a 100% negative viewpoint.

The truth is, some of those things were intended maliciously, by people he is wise to avoid. And some were mistakes, which he can't forgive because he gets stuck on the belief there was malicious intent and can't understand why the person wanted to harm him.

But walking around all airy-fairy and fluffy-sweet "They didn't mean to hurt me, it was just a mistake" isn't helpful, either.

The whole nature of red flags in relationships is discerning the difference, and deciding where our boundaries lie. Sometimes things that are "just mistakes" are equally relevant red flags as things done with malice.

Jane Mulberry wrote:The problem with the statement is the extreme way it's stated - NEVER believe anything that uses the word "never"! Or "always".

My husband has a massive issue with the attributing malice thing. No matter what, he assumes something that had a hurtful effect was done deliberately to be hurtful, and he spends a lot of time ruminating on past events and seeing them from a 100% negative viewpoint.

The truth is, some of those things were intended maliciously, by people he is wise to avoid. And some were mistakes, which he can't forgive because he gets stuck on the belief there was malicious intent and can't understand why the person wanted to harm him.

But walking around all airy-fairy and fluffy-sweet "They didn't mean to hurt me, it was just a mistake" isn't helpful, either.

The whole nature of red flags in relationships is discerning the difference, and deciding where our boundaries lie. Sometimes things that are "just mistakes" are equally relevant red flags as things done with malice.

You seem to look at it as Jordan does, where "never" is an absolute.  I don't see "never" as an absolute in this case because it comes with a qualifier.  I don't know if anyone is recommending looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, or suggesting that malice is never involved, just that people shouldn't start with the idea that an act was malicious.  

I certainly agree that some things that are "just a mistake" can still be a red flag.  If you left your front door open and your dog ran into the road and got killed by a car, it may certainly have been a mistake, but it also means you will probably be far too careless with things I love and I'm not willing to risk that you will make that mistake again.

That brings me to one of my own biggest deal breakers.  If you don't love animals, I'm out.  I can't even understand people that don't love animals, and I certainly don't want to be with one.  I have others, but that is one of the biggest.

Lol.   Bringing up dogs/animals.   I'm a dog trainer, and "dogs" are my hobby and lifestyle more than just my work.

I was dating a guy a while back.   He had just gotten a young female dog,   I already had 3 of my own dogs before we met.  

He started talking about us moving in together.   Then he started talking about this dog he saw free online that he wanted to go and get.   It was a "four year old male free to good home.." situation which is a BIG RED FLAG to me suggesting aggression issues as the rehoming reason.      

I said to him,  with thinking about harmoniously integrating the 4 dogs we have between us,  getting another might make it that much harder.   He responded "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it....."    Dude.   I'm standing on the bridge now.  

There was no suitable moving forward with that to me.   He didn't take it seriously as a consideration, and if it didn't work then what...  "someone" gets rid of a dog they already have?  Also not happening.  This was a huge dealbreaker for me.   It's an important piece of my life and big part of what's important to me.

FYI-  the first time I met the dog,  it bit me and drew blood.   'Nuff said.  

Jordan Holland wrote:"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

So, people never intentionally do anything bad? It's always due to incompetence? I think not."

Now go back and quote Hanlon's razor properly.


"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

You got so stuck on the "Never", that you missed the "adequately".



At least half of the book of Proverbs (a good chunk of these sayings originate in the Bible) is directly contradictory. Is it schizophrenic? No. It's a book that's supposed to teach wisdom.

These sayings are not supposed to be blindly applied but to make people stop and think about the situation. The wisdom is not in the words but in the action of considering and deciding if that saying applies in that circumstance.

I have "the list" I ask potential mates
Job that pays your bills
Collections
Debt to income ratio
Home that isn't Mom's basement
Is it a third world country I wouldn't take my shoes off in
Does it contain all utilities in expected areas
Substance addictions
Molested as a child by parents, siblings, or someone outside the family
Sexual addictions /pornography addiction
Do you eat real food
Favorite 3 meals
Criminal record, all of it, not part
Children you may or may not know about
Liens on property
What do you consider an "acceptable" amount of debt
How many jobs have you had
What are your top 3 vacation destinations
Do you own a suit, and would you wear it if you weren't dead
How do you show affection
How do you fight /argue/disagree
Are you the asshole who won't dance?

More are added to the list all the time.

I have a new one to add to the pile. If I look at the social media profile of a prospective mate and see lots of motivational quotes about overcoming a past narcissistic relationship, and about "protecting my peace" (been seeing that one a lot lately) and the like, then I am calling that a reasonable deal breaker from now on. Based on recent experiences, I am considering it extremely probable that said person recently got out of a narcissistic relationship, and said person was the narcissist. Or at the very least they absorbed some of the narcissistic traits into themselves. Whatever the case, it's not worth it. If a person truly understood suffering under a narcissist, I would think they would do everything in their power not to treat someone else in the very same manner.

I never gave it much thought, but it makes perfect sense. Pretending to be the victim of a narcissist would be a perfect cover for a narcissist, and set a perfect trap to ensnare future victims, as people who are willing to overlook one's past, or (even better) have a desire to help others would make the best victims.

Jordan Holland wrote:

There's a saying I've been hearing a lot lately that really bugs me because everyone seems to think it's true when there's actually no correlation, it just sounds like there is because it's an old saying. If I can remember it I'll try to post it later.

I remembered!

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."

So, people never intentionally do anything bad? It's always due to incompetence? I think not.

I read it as giving people "the benefit of the doubt"...If you don't know for certain it was malice, explore their potential for "incompetence"- in whatever form that may take..