I'm not saying that he should trust her on these assumptions. I'm saying that him being concerned if she is wrong or right on the topic should be secondary to him trying NOT to debunk meaningful and important events or experiences in her life IF he can't replace them with equally meaningful and important experiences.
One of her experiences is a party trick little kids perform at sleepovers.
I agree with you in principle. I also agree that your approach is FAR more likely to have a productive outcome.
But she:
1. Thinks she physically levitated
2. Is deeply and profoundly affected by this experience
3. Has no concept that what she claims is an extremely extraordinary claim: a literally world-changing and crazy magic everything-we-know-is-wrong event.
4. Does not appear to be able to accept or defend against the expected normal incredulity of an intelligent human for whom she has feelings.
5. Sees a single personal experience as prima facie evidence of an extreme and ridiculous assertion, beyond even most religious assertions from common faiths.
6. Shows evidence of other similarly silly beliefs.
It's real, REAL hard to not be dismissive of her claim. If someone made a claim like that and I did not immediately dismiss it, I would dedicate the rest of my life to investigating and proving it to be true. Trust broke down the moment she expressed that claim. I don't think it can be recovered.
She fell for "stiff as a board; light as a feather." How do you even begin to engage on that? It's not like this is a longstanding traditional religion or cultural tradition, for which there's at least some cultural and societal gravitas. It's silly to the point that I would probably giggle a little (whether I wanted to or not) the moment I realized she was serious.
Again, please don't think Rym and Scott are people to listen to on these matters. See Rym's post above about cutting of woo people. It's very helpful as a rule of thumb, but maybe it's wildly unhelpful NOW for someone who finds him or herself in a situation with someone they care about.
You are correct that those experience are real for her. But that is what makes it even worse. A person for whom supernatural things are real is a scary person. Not only should they not be trusted, they should not be associated with. They are a real danger to themselves and others.
Except, Scott, I WAS one of those people. And you know what? I'm not any more. Maybe I was once scary, but I'm not now.
Luke is correct that there is no point in arguing to be "right" for the sake of being smug or laughing at them. That is pointless. The only point in even discussing these things would be if you could possibly truly convince them and bring them back to rationality. That is nearly impossible. If it can't, or won't be accomplished, just run away as fast as possible.
First, I'm not only saying there is no point in arguing with them to be smug or any other reason. I'm saying DON'T argue with them.
Second, there is more than one reason to discuss them (not argue with them) beyond convincing someone they are wrong. This is a terrible reason to discuss anything! And again why Rym and Scott's views on the matter are too shallow to be taken seriously.
You discuss these things to find out what they mean to your girlfriend. There is a reason she believes them, or wants to believe them, and those things reflect her real wants and desires and insecurities and all those other things.
Those things should be important to you if you care about someone and want to be in a relationship with that person. And being in a loving relationship should probably involve helping your partner to achieve their wants and desires, and to diminish their insecurities, and help them grow as a person, and all those other things.
Belief in supernatural things is just an expression, probably not the cause of anything wrong.
Again, once you can replace the need for belief in the supernatural, or diminish the things that drives them to that belief, then no convincing needs to happen. No argument either. Also no cutting someone you care about out of your life.
You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
Smiling and nodding at ridiculous assertions is one of the biggest reasons things like racism can so easily persist. Silence or "going along with it" imply tacit support.
Again, once you can replace the need for belief in the supernatural, or diminish the things that drives them to that belief, then no convincing needs to happen. No argument either. Also no cutting someone you care about out of your life.
So the question for him is, does he have the patience to do this? Can he truly not engage on such silly claims long enough to make it work?
Again, once you can replace the need for belief in the supernatural, or diminish the things that drives them to that belief, then no convincing needs to happen. No argument either. Also no cutting someone you care about out of your life.
So the question for him is, does he have the patience to do this? Can he truly not engage on such silly claims long enough to make it work?
I don't know many people who can.
Well, in this case, he might not. But in general, people can.
For example, when I first got together with Pola, we were driving along a road near were I grew up, and I mentioned that we passed a spot where I saw a UFO.
About 3 years later in our relationship, she mentioned that at the time, she thought I was a crazy woo person. She didn't know that while I saw a UFO, it didn't mean I believed in UFOs. As in, I saw something I couldn't identify, though I have worked out a few theories over the years of what it could be, but I didn't take it as personal evidence of aliens visiting Earth.
Of course, if she had pressed the point at the time, that would have come out earlier, but it wasn't enough to get in the way of our burgeoning relationship at the time. And I'm kinda glad she didn't push it.
You are right to a certain extent. My mom is really into homeopathic medicine to try and treat minor issues but I pretty much just say no thank you whenever she suggests stuff like that. My dad isn't into it and my brother tries it but mostly because some of it just makes him feel better with some of his medical problems, he still goes to normal doctors and follows their advice. You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
This isn't an issue of personal satisfaction. It never is, and never was. It's an issue of life and death.
A person who believes in woo is a very real danger to themselves and others. Imagine if a person you loved was going to jump off a bridge. You would stop them, right? You would physically restrain them if you had to? I would sure hope so.
Now let's say your friend started smoking. Would you stop them? I would do everything in my power to make them quit. Not because of some hubris of needing to be right, but to save their life, whether they like it or not.
Let's say your friend was using homeopathy. Sure, the degree of harm is probably less, but it's still there. At minimum they are wasting their money, and that money is going to evil charlatans. I have a hard time allowing that to continue. Even if they are willing to go to real doctors for real medical concerns, homeopathy is still dangerous. In some cases it is literal poison (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/05/13/homeopathic-pain-medicine-contains-poison/).
Also, many people who need medical care will go to fake medicine first even if they are willing to go to real doctors later. Steve Jobs was lucky enough to have a rare, but treatable form of cancer. He refused real medical treatment and opted for woo instead. Without proper treatment it progressed. He finally went to a real doctor, but it was too late. He delayed it because of fake medicine. He would almost certainly be alive and healthy today if he had been properly treated right away. Probably wouldn't have even needed the liver transplant he eventually received.
The Pittsburgh Penguins currently are suffering with the mumps because of vaccine denial woo. Very talented and young hockey players could die because of irrational people. It's no joke. People who refuse to vaccinate should be either exiled to an island like lepers, or should be held down and vaccinated against their will. I find that removal of freedom acceptable, as you are actively preventing what is akin to negligent homicide.
What if your mom gets something like appendicitis? If she uses homeopathy and waits a day to see a real doctor before realizing its not working, she'll be dead. If you love your mom as much as I love mine, you will do everything in your power to prevent her from engaging in irrational and dangerous behaviors.
If I meet new people who are irrational, I do not associate with them and do not allow them in my life. If people I do know become irrational and can not be convinced otherwise, I excommunicate them post-haste. There is no hope, and any other course will only lead to ruin.
It's not about the satisfaction of being right. This isn't some stupid argument about remembering all the dwarves in LotR. This is serious matters of life and death.
The big question is whether her beliefs are harmless or harmful. If she is Steve Jobs "this fake medicine will cure my cancer" level then you should probably dump her. If she just hangs crystals in windows but otherwise takes Nyquil when ill than you can keep her and just ignore her quirk.
Yeah. My advice definitely only applies to someone in my general situation: large set group of close friends, long-term committed relationship, no need to expand either of them. It's a heuristic to avoid annoying people as much as possible.
We definitely need people like you in the mix who are willing to wholly and earnestly engage on that level, around these beliefs instead of at them.
In examining my advice for a bit just now, I realized something important. The biggest factor here is simply admitting that the extraordinary claim is indeed extraordinary.
If she had the same levitation belief, but admitted that it's extraordinary and difficult to prove/recreate, and was not offended by a reasonable person expecting some form of evidence before taking the claim at face value... that's a totally different situation
The warning flag for me was that it sounds like she was immediately defensive and incredulous to the idea that the claim was extraordinary.
I know a lot of people who believe a lot of crazy things. But, they admit not that they're wrong, but that their claims are extraordinary. That's all I really want or need from someone. That's the specific line.
Someone who treats ordinary and extraordinary claims the same, and who is offended by the perfectly natural, expected incredulity of a normal person, sets off my BLOCK/IGNORE flag faster than anything.
Even the religious people I know are quick to point out in any debate that what they believe is personal, or that they can't easily prove it to me. They admit that their belief is fundamentally disruptive to general human experience. I still think they're wrong, but because they have that single admission, that what they believe is indeed an extraordinary thing, is enough.
Our friend here can obviously give us more detail, but I suspect his reaction was the standard "really?" that anyone would give anyone if they said, say, that they were really JFK.
I've got some things to think about. I'd like to try to make it work. The chemistry that we have is far better than any other relationship I have had before.
Luke, I'll be careful to remember that her experiences are real to her. It's the old "Disney fan upset by Disney haters" thing. And I'm the hater. But it's not a silly label being assigned, it's the past she's lived and that's not something anyone can abandon.
I might have to work vaccinations into our conversations as that would probably be a deal breaker if she was against it and I couldn't talk to her about properly.
This conversation reminds me of my current situation. I'm a pretty steadfast atheist and skeptic of everything woo-adjacent. However, I am currently in a very happy and committed relationship with a semi-active Christian person. It hasn't gotten in the way of our relationship (my SO doesn't carry around a cross, never really performs any open prayer, and is averse to being preachy), but it is definitely a very ingrained part of their personhood.
They are a smart and critical person themselves, so I sometimes have to suppress the inner skeptic in me that wants to bring up all of my issues with religion and the bible. However, since the relationship is absolutely amazing otherwise, we have a mutual agreement that we won't push each other one way or the other.
Ultimately it's a compromise that we are both willing to make for each other, and I think doing something similar in your situation may be worth it. Just let this person know that, while you don't share their belief on the "woo" stuff, you still value their opinions and the relationship as a whole.
I gotta agree with Luke on this one. As long as they don't have a belief that is dangerous (homopathy) it's pretty easy to ignore stuff like believing in ghosts and such. I usually just say "I don't believe in Ghosts" and leave the conversation but that's not 100% of what that person is so why should that get in the way of playing a good board game or whatever else you are doing with that person. Especially if it has nothing to do with talking about Ghosts.
My sister is this way, she's an Agnostic Atheist probably due to my influence but she still has this lingering belief in Ghosts and psychics, every once in a while she talks about it and I just say "You cray cray girl" and we leave it at that. Since our relationship has nothing to do with Ghosts and Psychics I really could care less about her opinion on those topics. I feel a bit bad that she hangs on to those concepts but it doesn't affect our Brother/sister relationship.
You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
Smiling and nodding at ridiculous assertions is one of the biggest reasons things like racism can so easily persist. Silence or "going along with it" imply tacit support.
Lol, wow. Don't be a dummy. I think there is a difference between something that doesn't hurt anyone and something that disempowers a race of people. There is a visible line between being pervasive and passive. Like what Steve is saying. And it sounds like she is not affecting anyone around her with her beliefs. Also I'm not even saying you smile and nod. It's just making it clear that you don't agree and that is that. No need to go farther. There's a time and place for action but treating nontoxic beliefs the same as racism is just ridiculous.
You are right to a certain extent. My mom is really into homeopathic medicine to try and treat minor issues but I pretty much just say no thank you whenever she suggests stuff like that. My dad isn't into it and my brother tries it but mostly because some of it just makes him feel better with some of his medical problems, he still goes to normal doctors and follows their advice. You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
This isn't an issue of personal satisfaction. It never is, and never was. It's an issue of life and death.
A person who believes in woo is a very real danger to themselves and others. Imagine if a person you loved was going to jump off a bridge. You would stop them, right? You would physically restrain them if you had to? I would sure hope so.
Now let's say your friend started smoking. Would you stop them? I would do everything in my power to make them quit. Not because of some hubris of needing to be right, but to save their life, whether they like it or not.
Let's say your friend was using homeopathy. Sure, the degree of harm is probably less, but it's still there. At minimum they are wasting their money, and that money is going to evil charlatans. I have a hard time allowing that to continue. Even if they are willing to go to real doctors for real medical concerns, homeopathy is still dangerous. In some cases it is literal poison (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/05/13/homeopathic-pain-medicine-contains-poison/).
Also, many people who need medical care will go to fake medicine first even if they are willing to go to real doctors later. Steve Jobs was lucky enough to have a rare, but treatable form of cancer. He refused real medical treatment and opted for woo instead. Without proper treatment it progressed. He finally went to a real doctor, but it was too late. He delayed it because of fake medicine. He would almost certainly be alive and healthy today if he had been properly treated right away. Probably wouldn't have even needed the liver transplant he eventually received.
The Pittsburgh Penguins currently are suffering with the mumps because of vaccine denial woo. Very talented and young hockey players could die because of irrational people. It's no joke. People who refuse to vaccinate should be either exiled to an island like lepers, or should be held down and vaccinated against their will. I find that removal of freedom acceptable, as you are actively preventing what is akin to negligent homicide.
What if your mom gets something like appendicitis? If she uses homeopathy and waits a day to see a real doctor before realizing its not working, she'll be dead. If you love your mom as much as I love mine, you will do everything in your power to prevent her from engaging in irrational and dangerous behaviors.
If I meet new people who are irrational, I do not associate with them and do not allow them in my life. If people I do know become irrational and can not be convinced otherwise, I excommunicate them post-haste. There is no hope, and any other course will only lead to ruin.
It's not about the satisfaction of being right. This isn't some stupid argument about remembering all the dwarves in LotR. This is serious matters of life and death.
See the thing is my mom has had cancer, and she went to a doctor, and she is fine now. She's not entirely crazy :P
Personally for me there is a line that can be drawn where if someone is into a belief but doesn't affect people around them in either A) putting themselves at risk at the distress of those around them or insistently forcing their beliefs on others in any fashion. Like in a way I think trying to get them to see scientifically proven reason is still forcing your beliefs on others. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS RYMS DUMB RACISM COMMENT. I am talking specifically of things that may hurt either the person in question or the person in a relationship with them. There are certain things that you cannot tolerate at all. One such thing is treating people equally for things they are born with.
You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
Smiling and nodding at ridiculous assertions is one of the biggest reasons things like racism can so easily persist. Silence or "going along with it" imply tacit support.
Lol, wow. Don't be a dummy. I think there is a difference between something that doesn't hurt anyone and something that disempowers a race of people. There is a visible line between being pervasive and passive. Like what Steve is saying. And it sounds like she is not affecting anyone around her with her beliefs. Also I'm not even saying you smile and nod. It's just making it clear that you don't agree and that is that. No need to go farther. There's a time and place for action but treating nontoxic beliefs the same as racism is just ridiculous.
First off, all irrational beliefs are always at least somewhat harmful. Even something that seems innocuous like a belief in ghosts causes real harm in the real world. People who own houses that are believed to be "haunted" lose lots of real money because of the irrationality of others. Likewise, people who believe their own house is haunted are often taken advantage of by others who know better. At minimum some "ghost hunters" will trick you into paying for some tour of a scary place and sell you useless junk. Or maybe some psychic will trick you into paying for a seance to talk to dead relatives, bringing about both emotional and financial harm.
But let's say the irrational belief is indeed "harmless." How is it possible to have a real relationship with such a person? A real relationship at minimum requires respect. How can you respect someone who believes such things?
You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
Smiling and nodding at ridiculous assertions is one of the biggest reasons things like racism can so easily persist. Silence or "going along with it" imply tacit support.
Lol, wow. Don't be a dummy. I think there is a difference between something that doesn't hurt anyone and something that disempowers a race of people. There is a visible line between being pervasive and passive. Like what Steve is saying. And it sounds like she is not affecting anyone around her with her beliefs. Also I'm not even saying you smile and nod. It's just making it clear that you don't agree and that is that. No need to go farther. There's a time and place for action but treating nontoxic beliefs the same as racism is just ridiculous.
First off, all irrational beliefs are always at least somewhat harmful. Even something that seems innocuous like a belief in ghosts causes real harm in the real world. People who own houses that are believed to be "haunted" lose lots of real money because of the irrationality of others. Likewise, people who believe their own house is haunted are often taken advantage of by others who know better. At minimum some "ghost hunters" will trick you into paying for some tour of a scary place and sell you useless junk. Or maybe some psychic will trick you into paying for a seance to talk to dead relatives, bringing about both emotional and financial harm.
But let's say the irrational belief is indeed "harmless." How is it possible to have a real relationship with such a person? A real relationship at minimum requires respect. How can you respect someone who believes such things?
Concerning things like that I don't really have much to say. As a hypothetical say someone had a house that had a projection around it that made it look like it was on the peak of Mt. Everest. Some people would love such a house. I would be terrified of such a house, even if it doesn't present any real threat to me, purely because I have irrational fears about heights (even perceived heights). I could fight against it, but I would be uncomfortable. I imagine someone who has a fear of ghosts acting the same way even if they know its silly. If someone instills a thought of a house being haunted in their brain they can't unthink it.
I would say that is entirely based on the personality of a person. You obviously don't have the tolerance for such people, which is fine. But not everyone will be as intolerant of such personalities. Maybe someone even thinks its charming without believing any of the weird stuff they believe. It's never black and white.
I'm in the same camp that it's only a deal breaker if it's either harmful, or if the other person brings it up all the time. My fiancee doesn't believe in ghosts in the traditional sense, but she 100% believes that her childhood home used to be haunted by a ghost, as does everyone in her family. And I have to admit that the evidence is pretty convincing, though I still don't believe it was an actual ghost. All of the situations can be explained by something else. But I let it go because she doesn't talk about it. And when she or her family does talk about it, it is in a lighthearted manner. They don't act like it was a life-changing thing, but rather some crazy thing that just happened to them. That kind of thing isn't a big deal to me. She agrees with me in pretty much every other aspect regarding spirituality and medicine, so it's all good.
You will lead a lonely life if you are so intolerant about some harmless woo. I like a woman with a few woo quirks as long as they are not harmful.
For example I would prefer that my woman perform good deeds because she is a good person and wants to do good bit I will not hold it against her if she does good deeds because a) she is looking forward to reward in the after life, b) she believes in karma, c) she believes that it will attract good luck fairies... What I would object to is if she only did good deeds because she feared punishment from the invisible guy in the sky. Point being that it is OK if her quirk is based on a belief in a positive feedback loop but not OK if she is just doing things to avoid punishment.
Even things like alternative medicines are fine as long as she doesn't use them in place of real medicine or go broke buying them. If a crystal hanging in the window produces a positive psychosomatic effect in her well being (even though I know it does nothing) why would I burst that bubble other than to be mean?
You don't need to believe it, but sometimes its not really worth disproving something or someone for little to no reason other than personal satisfaction.
Smiling and nodding at ridiculous assertions is one of the biggest reasons things like racism can so easily persist. Silence or "going along with it" imply tacit support.
Lol, wow. Don't be a dummy. I think there is a difference between something that doesn't hurt anyone and something that disempowers a race of people. There is a visible line between being pervasive and passive. Like what Steve is saying. And it sounds like she is not affecting anyone around her with her beliefs. Also I'm not even saying you smile and nod. It's just making it clear that you don't agree and that is that. No need to go farther. There's a time and place for action but treating nontoxic beliefs the same as racism is just ridiculous.
First off, all irrational beliefs are always at least somewhat harmful. Even something that seems innocuous like a belief in ghosts causes real harm in the real world. People who own houses that are believed to be "haunted" lose lots of real money because of the irrationality of others. Likewise, people who believe their own house is haunted are often taken advantage of by others who know better. At minimum some "ghost hunters" will trick you into paying for some tour of a scary place and sell you useless junk. Or maybe some psychic will trick you into paying for a seance to talk to dead relatives, bringing about both emotional and financial harm.
But let's say the irrational belief is indeed "harmless." How is it possible to have a real relationship with such a person? A real relationship at minimum requires respect. How can you respect someone who believes such things?
Concerning things like that I don't really have much to say. As a hypothetical say someone had a house that had a projection around it that made it look like it was on the peak of Mt. Everest. Some people would love such a house. I would be terrified of such a house, even if it doesn't present any real threat to me, purely because I have irrational fears about heights (even perceived heights). I could fight against it, but I would be uncomfortable. I imagine someone who has a fear of ghosts acting the same way even if they know its silly. If someone instills a thought of a house being haunted in their brain they can't unthink it.
I would say that is entirely based on the personality of a person. You obviously don't have the tolerance for such people, which is fine. But not everyone will be as intolerant of such personalities. Maybe someone even thinks its charming without believing any of the weird stuff they believe. It's never black and white.
Your irrational fear of heights isn't comparable. Even though you are using the same words "irrational fear", it's not the same thing at all.
You know in your conscious brain that there is little to fear from simply being in a high place that is secure with a fence, window, etc. Your body reacts when it feels that it is in a very much elevated position by releasing chemicals that make you feel afraid. That's something your body does that you can only do so much to control. My body does it as well, but not to such an extent to where I can't easily overcome it. Different human bodies do it differently.
You don't have some irrational belief. Your conscious and rational brain doesn't believe things that are not true. You don't have a belief that is going to cause you to act in a way that is harmful to yourself and others.
If you truly believed that being high up was dangerous, then you would in fact be a danger to yourself and others. You would inconvenience people who wanted to travel with you due to your refusal to fly. You would actively prevent friends from riding roller coasters because you were afraid of them. Maybe you will try to pass a law preventing buildings taller than X from being constructed and demolishing all existing structures taller than X?
I wish I could say that was a hyperbolic example, but it's not. Religious people want the law to say that health care shouldn't have to pay for birth control. Even if a particular religious person does not agree with those "bad" religious people on issues like birth control or whatever, that does not matter. Within them lives the same root that is so dangerous. It it can not be eliminated, it is best to avoid it.
My best friend and I are in a similar situation. She is deeeeeeply religious, gets the heeby jeebies about otherwise empty rooms sometimes, believes in ghosts, and messages from god in her dreams. I do not. However, she recognizes, to an extent, that the belief in the existence of these things are irrational outside of faith in them and that non-believers are still acting completely rationally if they don't believe in them. We still have a deep and fundamental respect for each other, so when she feels like she needs to talk about that kind of stuff with me, she always prefaces it with "I know you don't believe in this stuff but/ you'll think I'm crazy but/etc" and I always respond "It's cool, go ahead". This difference in faith/not faith is the biggest reason we both decided it would be a bad idea for us to date, despite the fact that we are otherwise very much in sync with each other. I mean, we have cogent conversations in grunts and half sentences sometimes. We are so much in step, her boyfriend has asked her why she's not dating me.
Anyways, the point is dating your girlfriend probably wont work out for much longer with this kind of difference.
I see a lot of projection on what may or may not be actual motivations or beliefs based on perhaps stereotypes of 'woo believers' which, you know, fine.
But I don't get enough information from the posts setting the stage to know enough to really say. We can maybe start looking into a certain direction. but this discussion seems to step a few levels past it and start drawing conclusions that may be imaginary.
Or not and I'm just not reading into it enough.
I am pretty much not believing in 'woo' and such, and make it a firm step in my thought process to avoid any faith-based belief system at all somuch as possible. Science, logic, those things have rigor that we've established is a good method for determining how the world actually works.
But I do respect that there's things humans don't know yet, from physics to science to medicine to... basic geography of our planet, or all the species within, there are always unsolved and in some cases unknown factors; and as a result opens the possibility that phenomena have been happening for a long time, that people do experience and is out of the ordinary, and have been part of the human experience of the world for a long time, but are not really quantifiable in our current scientific rigor as actual things that can happen because we don't have the means or funding or willingness to study such things, or that previous attempts have been unsuccessful.
That's not me saying woo is real, just me acknowledging that some 'wooisms' may be grounded in real things that we have not scientifically or logically investigated sufficiently, and it may be due to a limitation of the human experience and the scientific method we currently have to observe and quantify such phenomenon. But as Rym points out, if we did start finding ways to explain and express such phenomenon seriously, rigorously, etc etc... that would be big news. It'd be big like the discoveries of electromagnetism or nuclear forces were big.
But it doesn't mean that hokey religions and ancient weapons are a good substitute for a blaster on your side. There's nothing that tells me to take any notion of any particular supernatural experience or phenomenon without the salt to accompany it for substance.
Having to deal with people who cling to beliefs you don't hold to, regardless of the type or severity, is taxing. Whether it is a very minor inconvenience or not is up to you. It may be belief in woo, or belief in abstinence before marriage, or belief that videogames are boring... all relationships require finding your tolerance for different points of view in some form. Through experience and time and our own beliefs we can define those tolerances.
I've read a lot of stuff about how to approach this relationship. I agree and disagree with lots of it. Luke is particularly on point in regards to the theme of this entire thread, actually dating someone and making it work. However, his advice specifically is tailored towards the treatment of the "woo"-believing individual. Which is fine and good, it's a great perspective to add.
But since you are the one in this thread, I think addressing what you feel and think is important. Luke has adequately explained why your girlfriend responded as she did. But, in all this talk, we ignore the one simple question: Are you actually okay with it? You came here to ask us if you should be/how to deal with it, which means you are questioning it. You say you are willing to look past it as a minor issue so long as it is not a belief to which she stands by fervently and "dangerously." But almost every time I've heard people in a relationship say that they have something they are "willing to look past," it ends pretty poorly.
The fact is, regardless of whatever it is you two are experiencing, what you both deserve is someone who respects and fulfills you, where you don't have to think. It is absolutely possible that through a discussion about these kinds of topics, two people can come to an understanding where they no longer feel like they have to "look past" an issue, because it is instead resolved. Like Rym was saying above, your level of resolution may simply be an admission that "I have personal experiences that drive this belief, but I neither consider it normal, provable, or expect or desire anyone else to believe it based on my word." At the end of the day, that may be enough for you. It then becomes a matter of if that is enough for her.
However, that may not be enough for you. We can all agree that this idea Rym put forward is a very legitimate one. On paper it sounds reasonable, diplomatic, and fair. As one of the more religious individuals on this forum, it is certainly the agreement I would seek to have with people who disagree with me, and I often have said things in exactly that way. But, it would not be unreasonable of me to not want to have to say such a thing, nor would it be unreasonable of someone to not be okay with my beliefs just because I said or admitted that.
Do not feel compelled to use our measures of what is or isn't okay. What Rym said works for him. And other people as well. But not necessarily you. Disassociate yourself from the relationship as it is for a moment. Imagine what you want, not an ideal, but as a baseline. What you expect from an individual you truly care for, and what you think ought to be fair from both sides. In regards to your girlfriend's beliefs, you need to find your metric, find hers, and see if they can align. If one of you has to make a big compromise on your metric, the relationship becomes questionable.
The chemistry is probably great, like you said. The connection is there. I've been in that boat. But if it comes up, especially more than once, that there's some metric that the two of you really don't agree on, it will cause trouble. This has been what ended my two relationships. The first ended rather negatively, we no longer speak. The other ended positively and we are close friends, because we were both able to admit that we simply weren't capable of compromise on certain things, and forcing that wasn't worth all the enjoyable flirting and physical intimacy and co-dependency.
That's what you need to think about, because this seems like something that could definitely be compromised over in the short run. But while compromises are important in any relationship, romantic or otherwise, big compromises over things you don't want a huge compromise over will cause problems, and can't be easily brushed away.
I'm trying to do the dating thing. I spent a long time either feverishly delusional about it or completely apathetic, neither of which is a good way to start. But now, after all the shit I've been through, I think I'm of the right state of mind. I started an OKC, because my current lifestyle doesn't offer itself up for socializing IRL much. What should I know about stuff and things?
Crazy chicks are like roller coasters, they are tons of fun to ride but eventually you have to get off the ride. Sometimes it involves jumping out of a moving coaster and you break your bones in the process.
Stick to bumper cars and other short term rides until you get some experience under your belt.
Crazy chicks are like roller coasters, they are tons of fun to ride but eventually you have to get off the ride. Sometimes it involves jumping out of a moving coaster and you break your bones in the process.
Stick to bumper cars and other short term rides until you get some experience under your belt.
Which reminds me: do you mind that "HTMKSteve's Crazy Ex" is a CAH white card here at TvHQ?
Comments
This post appeared somehow.
I agree with you in principle. I also agree that your approach is FAR more likely to have a productive outcome.
But she:
1. Thinks she physically levitated
2. Is deeply and profoundly affected by this experience
3. Has no concept that what she claims is an extremely extraordinary claim: a literally world-changing and crazy magic everything-we-know-is-wrong event.
4. Does not appear to be able to accept or defend against the expected normal incredulity of an intelligent human for whom she has feelings.
5. Sees a single personal experience as prima facie evidence of an extreme and ridiculous assertion, beyond even most religious assertions from common faiths.
6. Shows evidence of other similarly silly beliefs.
It's real, REAL hard to not be dismissive of her claim. If someone made a claim like that and I did not immediately dismiss it, I would dedicate the rest of my life to investigating and proving it to be true. Trust broke down the moment she expressed that claim. I don't think it can be recovered.
She fell for "stiff as a board; light as a feather." How do you even begin to engage on that? It's not like this is a longstanding traditional religion or cultural tradition, for which there's at least some cultural and societal gravitas. It's silly to the point that I would probably giggle a little (whether I wanted to or not) the moment I realized she was serious.
Second, there is more than one reason to discuss them (not argue with them) beyond convincing someone they are wrong. This is a terrible reason to discuss anything! And again why Rym and Scott's views on the matter are too shallow to be taken seriously.
You discuss these things to find out what they mean to your girlfriend. There is a reason she believes them, or wants to believe them, and those things reflect her real wants and desires and insecurities and all those other things.
Those things should be important to you if you care about someone and want to be in a relationship with that person. And being in a loving relationship should probably involve helping your partner to achieve their wants and desires, and to diminish their insecurities, and help them grow as a person, and all those other things.
Belief in supernatural things is just an expression, probably not the cause of anything wrong.
Again, once you can replace the need for belief in the supernatural, or diminish the things that drives them to that belief, then no convincing needs to happen. No argument either. Also no cutting someone you care about out of your life.
I don't know many people who can.
For example, when I first got together with Pola, we were driving along a road near were I grew up, and I mentioned that we passed a spot where I saw a UFO.
About 3 years later in our relationship, she mentioned that at the time, she thought I was a crazy woo person. She didn't know that while I saw a UFO, it didn't mean I believed in UFOs. As in, I saw something I couldn't identify, though I have worked out a few theories over the years of what it could be, but I didn't take it as personal evidence of aliens visiting Earth.
Of course, if she had pressed the point at the time, that would have come out earlier, but it wasn't enough to get in the way of our burgeoning relationship at the time. And I'm kinda glad she didn't push it.
A person who believes in woo is a very real danger to themselves and others. Imagine if a person you loved was going to jump off a bridge. You would stop them, right? You would physically restrain them if you had to? I would sure hope so.
Now let's say your friend started smoking. Would you stop them? I would do everything in my power to make them quit. Not because of some hubris of needing to be right, but to save their life, whether they like it or not.
Let's say your friend was using homeopathy. Sure, the degree of harm is probably less, but it's still there. At minimum they are wasting their money, and that money is going to evil charlatans. I have a hard time allowing that to continue. Even if they are willing to go to real doctors for real medical concerns, homeopathy is still dangerous. In some cases it is literal poison (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/05/13/homeopathic-pain-medicine-contains-poison/).
Also, many people who need medical care will go to fake medicine first even if they are willing to go to real doctors later. Steve Jobs was lucky enough to have a rare, but treatable form of cancer. He refused real medical treatment and opted for woo instead. Without proper treatment it progressed. He finally went to a real doctor, but it was too late. He delayed it because of fake medicine. He would almost certainly be alive and healthy today if he had been properly treated right away. Probably wouldn't have even needed the liver transplant he eventually received.
The Pittsburgh Penguins currently are suffering with the mumps because of vaccine denial woo. Very talented and young hockey players could die because of irrational people. It's no joke. People who refuse to vaccinate should be either exiled to an island like lepers, or should be held down and vaccinated against their will. I find that removal of freedom acceptable, as you are actively preventing what is akin to negligent homicide.
What if your mom gets something like appendicitis? If she uses homeopathy and waits a day to see a real doctor before realizing its not working, she'll be dead. If you love your mom as much as I love mine, you will do everything in your power to prevent her from engaging in irrational and dangerous behaviors.
If I meet new people who are irrational, I do not associate with them and do not allow them in my life. If people I do know become irrational and can not be convinced otherwise, I excommunicate them post-haste. There is no hope, and any other course will only lead to ruin.
It's not about the satisfaction of being right. This isn't some stupid argument about remembering all the dwarves in LotR. This is serious matters of life and death.
The big question is whether her beliefs are harmless or harmful. If she is Steve Jobs "this fake medicine will cure my cancer" level then you should probably dump her. If she just hangs crystals in windows but otherwise takes Nyquil when ill than you can keep her and just ignore her quirk.
We definitely need people like you in the mix who are willing to wholly and earnestly engage on that level, around these beliefs instead of at them.
In examining my advice for a bit just now, I realized something important. The biggest factor here is simply admitting that the extraordinary claim is indeed extraordinary.
If she had the same levitation belief, but admitted that it's extraordinary and difficult to prove/recreate, and was not offended by a reasonable person expecting some form of evidence before taking the claim at face value... that's a totally different situation
The warning flag for me was that it sounds like she was immediately defensive and incredulous to the idea that the claim was extraordinary.
I know a lot of people who believe a lot of crazy things. But, they admit not that they're wrong, but that their claims are extraordinary. That's all I really want or need from someone. That's the specific line.
Someone who treats ordinary and extraordinary claims the same, and who is offended by the perfectly natural, expected incredulity of a normal person, sets off my BLOCK/IGNORE flag faster than anything.
Even the religious people I know are quick to point out in any debate that what they believe is personal, or that they can't easily prove it to me. They admit that their belief is fundamentally disruptive to general human experience. I still think they're wrong, but because they have that single admission, that what they believe is indeed an extraordinary thing, is enough.
Our friend here can obviously give us more detail, but I suspect his reaction was the standard "really?" that anyone would give anyone if they said, say, that they were really JFK.
Luke, I'll be careful to remember that her experiences are real to her. It's the old "Disney fan upset by Disney haters" thing. And I'm the hater. But it's not a silly label being assigned, it's the past she's lived and that's not something anyone can abandon.
I might have to work vaccinations into our conversations as that would probably be a deal breaker if she was against it and I couldn't talk to her about properly.
They are a smart and critical person themselves, so I sometimes have to suppress the inner skeptic in me that wants to bring up all of my issues with religion and the bible. However, since the relationship is absolutely amazing otherwise, we have a mutual agreement that we won't push each other one way or the other.
Ultimately it's a compromise that we are both willing to make for each other, and I think doing something similar in your situation may be worth it. Just let this person know that, while you don't share their belief on the "woo" stuff, you still value their opinions and the relationship as a whole.
I'm sure you'll be much happier overall.
My sister is this way, she's an Agnostic Atheist probably due to my influence but she still has this lingering belief in Ghosts and psychics, every once in a while she talks about it and I just say "You cray cray girl" and we leave it at that. Since our relationship has nothing to do with Ghosts and Psychics I really could care less about her opinion on those topics. I feel a bit bad that she hangs on to those concepts but it doesn't affect our Brother/sister relationship.
Personally for me there is a line that can be drawn where if someone is into a belief but doesn't affect people around them in either A) putting themselves at risk at the distress of those around them or
But let's say the irrational belief is indeed "harmless." How is it possible to have a real relationship with such a person? A real relationship at minimum requires respect. How can you respect someone who believes such things?
I would say that is entirely based on the personality of a person. You obviously don't have the tolerance for such people, which is fine. But not everyone will be as intolerant of such personalities. Maybe someone even thinks its charming without believing any of the weird stuff they believe. It's never black and white.
For example I would prefer that my woman perform good deeds because she is a good person and wants to do good bit I will not hold it against her if she does good deeds because a) she is looking forward to reward in the after life, b) she believes in karma, c) she believes that it will attract good luck fairies... What I would object to is if she only did good deeds because she feared punishment from the invisible guy in the sky. Point being that it is OK if her quirk is based on a belief in a positive feedback loop but not OK if she is just doing things to avoid punishment.
Even things like alternative medicines are fine as long as she doesn't use them in place of real medicine or go broke buying them. If a crystal hanging in the window produces a positive psychosomatic effect in her well being (even though I know it does nothing) why would I burst that bubble other than to be mean?
You know in your conscious brain that there is little to fear from simply being in a high place that is secure with a fence, window, etc. Your body reacts when it feels that it is in a very much elevated position by releasing chemicals that make you feel afraid. That's something your body does that you can only do so much to control. My body does it as well, but not to such an extent to where I can't easily overcome it. Different human bodies do it differently.
You don't have some irrational belief. Your conscious and rational brain doesn't believe things that are not true. You don't have a belief that is going to cause you to act in a way that is harmful to yourself and others.
If you truly believed that being high up was dangerous, then you would in fact be a danger to yourself and others. You would inconvenience people who wanted to travel with you due to your refusal to fly. You would actively prevent friends from riding roller coasters because you were afraid of them. Maybe you will try to pass a law preventing buildings taller than X from being constructed and demolishing all existing structures taller than X?
I wish I could say that was a hyperbolic example, but it's not. Religious people want the law to say that health care shouldn't have to pay for birth control. Even if a particular religious person does not agree with those "bad" religious people on issues like birth control or whatever, that does not matter. Within them lives the same root that is so dangerous. It it can not be eliminated, it is best to avoid it.
However, she recognizes, to an extent, that the belief in the existence of these things are irrational outside of faith in them and that non-believers are still acting completely rationally if they don't believe in them. We still have a deep and fundamental respect for each other, so when she feels like she needs to talk about that kind of stuff with me, she always prefaces it with "I know you don't believe in this stuff but/ you'll think I'm crazy but/etc" and I always respond "It's cool, go ahead".
This difference in faith/not faith is the biggest reason we both decided it would be a bad idea for us to date, despite the fact that we are otherwise very much in sync with each other. I mean, we have cogent conversations in grunts and half sentences sometimes. We are so much in step, her boyfriend has asked her why she's not dating me.
Anyways, the point is dating your girlfriend probably wont work out for much longer with this kind of difference.
But I don't get enough information from the posts setting the stage to know enough to really say. We can maybe start looking into a certain direction. but this discussion seems to step a few levels past it and start drawing conclusions that may be imaginary.
Or not and I'm just not reading into it enough.
I am pretty much not believing in 'woo' and such, and make it a firm step in my thought process to avoid any faith-based belief system at all somuch as possible. Science, logic, those things have rigor that we've established is a good method for determining how the world actually works.
But I do respect that there's things humans don't know yet, from physics to science to medicine to... basic geography of our planet, or all the species within, there are always unsolved and in some cases unknown factors; and as a result opens the possibility that phenomena have been happening for a long time, that people do experience and is out of the ordinary, and have been part of the human experience of the world for a long time, but are not really quantifiable in our current scientific rigor as actual things that can happen because we don't have the means or funding or willingness to study such things, or that previous attempts have been unsuccessful.
That's not me saying woo is real, just me acknowledging that some 'wooisms' may be grounded in real things that we have not scientifically or logically investigated sufficiently, and it may be due to a limitation of the human experience and the scientific method we currently have to observe and quantify such phenomenon. But as Rym points out, if we did start finding ways to explain and express such phenomenon seriously, rigorously, etc etc... that would be big news. It'd be big like the discoveries of electromagnetism or nuclear forces were big.
But it doesn't mean that hokey religions and ancient weapons are a good substitute for a blaster on your side. There's nothing that tells me to take any notion of any particular supernatural experience or phenomenon without the salt to accompany it for substance.
Having to deal with people who cling to beliefs you don't hold to, regardless of the type or severity, is taxing. Whether it is a very minor inconvenience or not is up to you. It may be belief in woo, or belief in abstinence before marriage, or belief that videogames are boring... all relationships require finding your tolerance for different points of view in some form. Through experience and time and our own beliefs we can define those tolerances.
But since you are the one in this thread, I think addressing what you feel and think is important. Luke has adequately explained why your girlfriend responded as she did. But, in all this talk, we ignore the one simple question: Are you actually okay with it? You came here to ask us if you should be/how to deal with it, which means you are questioning it. You say you are willing to look past it as a minor issue so long as it is not a belief to which she stands by fervently and "dangerously." But almost every time I've heard people in a relationship say that they have something they are "willing to look past," it ends pretty poorly.
The fact is, regardless of whatever it is you two are experiencing, what you both deserve is someone who respects and fulfills you, where you don't have to think. It is absolutely possible that through a discussion about these kinds of topics, two people can come to an understanding where they no longer feel like they have to "look past" an issue, because it is instead resolved. Like Rym was saying above, your level of resolution may simply be an admission that "I have personal experiences that drive this belief, but I neither consider it normal, provable, or expect or desire anyone else to believe it based on my word." At the end of the day, that may be enough for you. It then becomes a matter of if that is enough for her.
However, that may not be enough for you. We can all agree that this idea Rym put forward is a very legitimate one. On paper it sounds reasonable, diplomatic, and fair. As one of the more religious individuals on this forum, it is certainly the agreement I would seek to have with people who disagree with me, and I often have said things in exactly that way. But, it would not be unreasonable of me to not want to have to say such a thing, nor would it be unreasonable of someone to not be okay with my beliefs just because I said or admitted that.
Do not feel compelled to use our measures of what is or isn't okay. What Rym said works for him. And other people as well. But not necessarily you. Disassociate yourself from the relationship as it is for a moment. Imagine what you want, not an ideal, but as a baseline. What you expect from an individual you truly care for, and what you think ought to be fair from both sides. In regards to your girlfriend's beliefs, you need to find your metric, find hers, and see if they can align. If one of you has to make a big compromise on your metric, the relationship becomes questionable.
The chemistry is probably great, like you said. The connection is there. I've been in that boat. But if it comes up, especially more than once, that there's some metric that the two of you really don't agree on, it will cause trouble. This has been what ended my two relationships. The first ended rather negatively, we no longer speak. The other ended positively and we are close friends, because we were both able to admit that we simply weren't capable of compromise on certain things, and forcing that wasn't worth all the enjoyable flirting and physical intimacy and co-dependency.
That's what you need to think about, because this seems like something that could definitely be compromised over in the short run. But while compromises are important in any relationship, romantic or otherwise, big compromises over things you don't want a huge compromise over will cause problems, and can't be easily brushed away.
Don't get bitter if you don't get a response or get blocked. They don't owe you.
It's OK to say no. You don't owe them.
Sex is fun. Like REALLY fun; but like most REALLY fun things, you should use protection. Until you know what and who you're doing.
Stick to bumper cars and other short term rides until you get some experience under your belt.
Or, you know, the ride never ends