To start with, I really enjoyed Veritaseum’s recent take on the “Prisoners Dillema” and Game Theory (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM). It seems appropriate to mention since it circles around this same “dillema” and even places a numerical value on the value of forgiving in game theory simulations. The historical part and layman’s reduction is good to.
I think THIS article undersells the “Hold a Grudge” payoff:
> David feels justified but might damage the relationship and stop Samantha from learning from her mistake.
Most relationships have an ongoing bargaining element to them. Exchange of services, tit for tat, quid pro quo, pay each others backs, etc. Even when we pretend they don’t, or obscure them by wrapping higher level words around them. What makes forgiving hard, is that when we feel wronged, we feel it gives us a better bargaining position go forward. If we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power going forward. Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <fill in the blank wrong thing> too!”
To clarify, I AM a big fan and proponent of forgiveness. I aspire to be better at. But I think this article has missed a key part of the dillema, by not better portraying the real allure of not forgiving.
I've always thought describing "whataboutism" as a logical fallacy as misunderstanding the broader picture.
I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change".
If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first."
There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.
The introduction poses a bit of a false dilemma--there's a third, unmentioned choice:
3. Forgive the individual who has wronged you for their past actions, without continuing the relationship.
Forgiving someone for a wrong action they've committed is too often conflated with restoring that person to an identical position of trust and closeness in your life. Forgiveness is about letting go of the past--it doesn't mean you also are obliged to recommit to a future.
Choosing to put a person back in the same level of trust as that of a stranger is not holding a grudge. Choosing to end a relationship is not holding a grudge. It is simply a reversion to the mean--one that could lead to rebuilding a relationship of trust, or not.
No, but I told them what they did wrong and how I wouldn't stand for it. I also took away the avenue they used to wrong me (Facebook) when I split with them, and didn't reinstate it when we started talking again. We never really communicated via FB anyhow, so it didn't matter much.
I don't really understand forgiveness. Unfortunately many situations are you have 1 chance and if you mess up it there is absolutely no way to reverse the type of relationship that was created. For example if you are wronged as a child from parent. Yes later as an adult you can "forgive" (whatever that means) but then you are not a child anymore, so it is just not the same. You needed that parent as a child as an adult it is completely different. You aren't "holding" onto anything you can accept they did their best it just wasn't good enough and there just isn't any way to "reverse" that and change your childhood.
Forgiveness is part taking control and part letting go and part accepting reality. It's not about the other person. It also doesn't mean you don't make any changes in your thoughts or behavior or adjust to the reality of whatever it is that the person did to need forgiveness for. If you were mistreated as a child, you can forgive the person who did it. But you'd be irresponsible to then just send your own kids over to that person's house or let them be a primary caretaker of your children.
Forgiveness isn't like acting like what a person did never happened. It's describing the cessation of the feeling of resentment and anger at being wronged. Depending on how small or large the action is, the wrongful action can be but is not always treated as if it never happened. I can cease being angry at my abusive parents but that doesn't mean I have to engage with them.
That's what you say is the definition of forgiveness, sure.
But is that the definition of forgiveness that everyone else actually has? Clearly enough people have a definition of forgiveness meaning exactly "acting like what a person did never happened", that threads like this become split with people talking past each other.
Dictionaries don’t determine how populations actually use words. They either tell you what the author thinks the word should mean, or more optimistically how a population used to use a word, with considerable lag between updates. When a dictionary fails to capture the meaning of how people use a word, is that a failure of the dictionary, or the people using the word?
To be clear, you are not wrong for having your own definition, but neither are others. Which is what I’m trying to communicate.
Again, what’s most important is to hear what people are actually saying in good faith, instead of trying to jam it into the shape we’d prefer. If so many people have a more complex definition of forgiveness than expected, does constantly waggling a finger and pointing to another definition facilitate communication, or does it start resembling gaslighting? For many people, telling them to “forgive” is identical to telling them to say “it’s fine/it’s no problem anymore”. What a dictionary says is irrelevant here, is the above what you really want to say, even accidentally?
When a population is clearly split on word meaning, then frankly the best thing to do is find a better word that can properly separate the concepts being used. Or just call it what it is, “letting go of anger/resentment”. Frankly that’s a lot more clear on the scope and benefits of what is being talked about. Perhaps psychology has something applicable, dunno.
I like the new-ish expression for holding a grudge as letting the person "live rent-free in your head." They have wronged you in the past, but it's rarely worth regularly spending mental energy ruminating about it. Easier said than done of course.
I have had the same take on this concept of "forgiving another".
I don't believe anyone can "forgive" another, we just don't hold that kind of power over others. We do hold that kind of power over ourselves and can forgive ourselves here.
It's not the power to absolve the "other" that I think we look for, but ourselves. If we forgive ourselves by giving ourselves the grace to understand it wasn't our fault for their bad behaviour and that it does not reflect anything about ourselves, then we have forgiven ourselves for letting someone else make us feel some kind of way and that allowing that feeling, whether anger, resentment, hurt, shame etc. to negatively affect our life. When it comes down to it, the people who hurt us the most are the ones we love the most.
If a co-worker sabotages my job I wont be as hurt as I would be if it were a partner who was stagnating and scared I would leave them behind. I may be briefly upset with the co-worker doing it and move on never working with them or the people they ruined things with again. But someone I loved is so much worse - my job is not to forgive them, they have to do that for themselves if they ever do. My job is to decide if they will stay in my life and then forgive myself for whatever range of emotions I will cycle through. Forgive myself for not spotting the signs or being close with someone like that - if that reflection concludes that I knew something was not right, forgive myself for not having stronger boundaries or working it out before it got to that point. If the above came out of the blue, then forgive myself for the initial loss of power that was given away in feeling betrayed and hurt by someone who showed themselves to not be worthy of that position in our life.
This may be a radical take and comes from a place of experience (not naivety). I believe forgiveness is more about grace for ourselves than it is having some kind of power over another with this magical version of "forgiveness". That version I think is mislabeled as it is more about strategic action (do you hold a grudge or let it slide, which is in your best external interest), than it is about self-grace (forgiving yourself for the weight and range/length of emotions anothers actions caused you and any part you played in it if any, that self-forgiveness will, over time, release it so you may continue on with a lighter load).
> For example if you are wronged as a child from parent.
It is equally true that when a parent does not wrong a child, that can't be erased either. Everything that has actually happened is carved in stone in terms of material history.
What is mutable is our interpretation of that past.
> You aren't "holding" onto anything you can accept they did their best it just wasn't good enough and there just isn't any way to "reverse" that and change your childhood.
It sounds like you are holding onto the idea that there is some alternate timeline you could have lived, some superior, irreplaceable childhood that has been take from you.
You're not wrong. But the amount of time you spend ruminating on that fact and deciding what it says about who you are today is largely under your own control.
> there just isn't any way to "reverse" that and change your childhood.
There isn't any way to reverse anything in life. The only thing we have any agency over is in which direction you go forward.
It is fine to cut out people that betray your trust. You don't owe anyone to give them a second or third chance.
If it is a minor thing and you think they can change and you are willing to keep trusting them, sure forgive them. Otherwise either change or cut your relationship to a new level of trust that expects them to do what they have done once.
The only mistake is holding grudges while keeping the relationship. That is unhealthy. You shouldn't feel bad for cutting out people. And you don't have to forgive. You just have to accept what happened, act accordingly and maybe stop dwelling on it. Acceptance does not need to be forgiveness.
>While forgiveness offers mental health benefits like reduced stress and anxiety...
It's not necessarily a direct causal relationship. Research shows that the reduced anxiety associated with forgiveness is more causally connected to intermediate factors such as managing anger and an optimistic/hopeful viewpoint rather than forgiveness per se. See e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120569/
I think it can set your free, but I don't think it's a necessity. I think it's totally possible to move on and process something without forgiving.
There's currently a cultural pressure to forgive, as if that's the only option. That makes things more difficult for those who are not able to forgive. There is no right way to process a wrong.
Terrible blog post which starts with a false dichotomy and a poor shoehorning of forgiveness into the prisoner's dilemma and works backwards from it.
The reason that the prisoner's dilemma is an inappropriate analogy is because it lacks the interpersonal element of one prisoner having mistreated the other prisoner and therein placing strain on it. As I expected, the entire post misses this nuance and completely misses the mark on accurately describing any such situation involving forgiveness. To frame the only two choices as "forgive/hold a grudge" is hyperbolic and childlike. Realistically, it's "get closer/create space." That creates a spectrum of how much space or conversely intimacy each parties want to have with one another. Of course, the blog post misses that dynamic completely in its excitement to apply the prisoner's dilemma to a situation it is inappropriate for.
I think a much better analogy for forgiveness is that trust is like a bank, or credit. It takes a long time to build up credit, but a very short time to destroy it. So it's not impossible to rebuild that trust, but it takes consistent long-term effort from the party that frayed that trust for it to be rebuilt.
And from the point of view from the party who is being asked for forgiveness -- the only appropriate way for them to respond without creating an unhealthy situation is to expect the situations that broke that trust to be rectified long-term. Otherwise, it's their prerogative to create enough distance for there to be safety. What they choose to do with that distance (hold a grudge or not) is up to them, but holding a temporary grudge is a pretty common way to work through the grief process and pathologizing it seems unrealistic and condescending to me.
Holding a permanent grudge seems unhealthy, but I don't think that surprises anyone.
It's David who has been wronged. It doesn't make any sense for the author to chastise him for having feelings about it. And it is not up to the author to prescribe what feelings are "correct" or which ones mean he "defected". Perhaps if David's forgiveness is so important to the author he should have thought of that before doing the wrong or at least make some effort to repair the damage he did.
Forgiveness has a double meaning, two separate but closely related concepts; those being:
(1) Letting go of negative feelings, a "conscious choice to let go of anger and resentment". This meaning of the word happens internally and is separate from what happens externally.
(2) Letting go of boundaries or consequences for those who have wronged you. This is the "not forgetting" part of "forgive but not forget". This meaning of the word happens externally. Some people don't consider it true forgiveness if you don't also let go of the consequences; that is, you must forgive and forget.
I would say (1) is always good. Let go of hate for your own mental health. (2) is more situational, but it's worth talking about explicitly. It's worth determining what exactly "I forgive you" means by talking about how boundaries, trust, and consequences have changed.
The idea that these two things are so deeply tied feels very cultural (western? christian?).
The parable of the two monks and the woman springs to mind as the best example of breaking the link between letting go and forgiving. If you dont know the parable see: https://www.alphahome.org/two-monks-and-a-woman/
Trying to map this issue onto the prisoners dilemma is reductive in a way that makes good content and bad advice. Walking away and letting go is a viable option, and depending on the circumstance might be better for the aggrieved party.
The article has quite a way of completely misunderstanding the term it defines right away.
It's not about staying with the person and not expecting to be cheated again. Forgiveness is about whether you break up and stay angry for the rest of your life, or break up and stop caring about it.
One of those is trivially and obviously counterproductive, with no upside at all.
I was bothered that the OP didn't make this distinction properly in their post. They instead gave the false dichotomy of "forgive and risk being stabbed" or "hold a grudge".
Who knows. Probably it was just AI-generated incoherent blogspam.
He defines the word just bellow that. The definition doesn't include giving her another chance.
The definition he gives is aligned with the common usage on the philosophical and religious contexts. The way he uses all around the article is aligned with the popular usage and has a completely different meaning.
Nobody will ever go claiming forgiving people by the popular meaning is something you should always do. It's patently stupid.
The problem I have with forgiveness is it is antithetical to creating a disincentive for the behavior or action being forgiven. What incentive does a maligned person have to change their behavior if they don't have any consequences?
In the definition being shared above forgiveness is just about letting go of of your intense negative feelings. By this limited definition it means changing how you feel about what happened. You stop carrying around hate and are able to act rationally and if continued punishment for the party that caused you harm is best then your punishment continues but the goal is to reform them not to fix your feelings since those you now control. By this limited definition of forgiveness it does not mean letting the involved party off the hook as one might if you are forgiving a loan. See my other comment about this above.
I forgive, but I don't forget. One thing is to not let your emotions affect your health, but if someone has crossed a boundary that has made you weary of them... there's no reason to open yourself up to them again.
This is the core of the matter, and even more: feeling "anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you" in the first place, is a personal choice too.
To put it another way, the real question is not "Can Letting Go Set You Free?" but "Who exactly took away your freedom to start with?"
The mock game theoretic prelude in the post is confused and obfuscates these simple facts.
Forgiving someone makes sense, if you believe they honestly made a mistake, or if they are willing to change their future behavior.
Forgiving does not make sense, if it just gives a narcissist another shot at you. "Fool me once..."
We have neighbors like that. We wanted to believe the best of them, and let them get away with crap 2 or 3 times. You don't have to be mad at people like that, you just have to realize that their nature is not going to change.
Forgiveness doesn't have to imply returning to the same level of trust. You can forgive your child for having lost your phone, and yet choose to wait until they're older before lending them the phone again.
Forgiveness is more about your own internal state. Are you still holding onto the pain of the betrayal? Most of the time, you're just continuing to let that thing harm you, if so.
Forgiveness can also be about finally acknowledging that you can't change the past.
> Forgiveness means letting go of anger and resentment towards someone who wronged you. It doesn’t mean forgetting what happened or saying it was okay.
Assuming that definition why would one ever not "forgive"? What this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings drive your decisions".
There is a variant of this advice involving positive feelings such as "do not let the positive feelings you may have towards a charismatic sales person drive your purchase decisions / your positive feelings towards a charismatic politician drive your voting" or better still "do not let an intense infatuation cause the ruin your marriage (cheating) / ruin of your career (work place relationship) / ruin of your life (unwanted pregnancy / child)"...
Again what this advice in essence says is "be logical and do not let intense feelings (both good or bad) drive your decisions".
It's probably a matter of definition, but I think it's useful to distinguish forgiving and (re)trusting.
IMO this is the most important distinction on this topic, whatever definition you give.
The difference between:
- to forgive (that is, letting go of negative feelings, accepting what happened), and to
- to trust (that what happened would not happen again).
You definitely don't need the other person (or their actions) for the former.
But you need evidence of some change for the latter.
(Ideally you need the other person to acknowledge what and why it happened, and following actions to attest to the new behaviour)
You can easily forgive a child that somehow misbehaved, without any work or interaction on their part, and have zero hard feelings. Which is different from trusting that the child's behaviour has changed.
Mixing forgiving and trusting, as is done throughout the article, is not at all productive.
You seemed to have forgiven them, but you don't trust them. How could you?
You can forgive but still have nothing to do with the person. Forgiveness doesn't have to mean you continue with them in any fashion at all. That's a separate choice.
Some people stay together, or keep their relationship whatever it was, and don't forgive each other, over whatever. Others forgive, but move on, and no longer have anything to do with each other.
Forgiveness and maintaining a relationship are independent things. They obviously affect and interact with each other, but they are independent of each other, nonetheless. :)
Also, I tend to believe Jesus, as in: turn the other cheek. That's a super power, because it actually saves you from doing something stupid that will hurt you more than, or at least as much as, hurt them.
Alternately, if you know that karma exists, then forgiveness takes on a different dimension. It's actually super badass. Because until you forgive and let go, the universe or karma, is waiting on you to dish out whatever you want to do, before it to takes its own vengeance -- giving you the right of first refusal, or whatever.
Once you forgive and let go, you free up the floodgates of karma to find their rightful home. You're no longer in the way. The universe doesn't have to wait on you anymore giving you the right to first reply, because you've already let go. In effect, you've outsourced your 'revenge', so to speak.
Until then the universe is waiting on you to make the first move, if you need to, so it probably won't do anything, so as to not interfere with your free will to take revenge if you want. But if you forgive, then you get someone else to (the universe, karma) do revenge for you, and you don't have to do anything, and nothing bad happens to you. It's the perfect badass move.
Therefore, forgiveness is the ultimate revenge.
But also, in another way, it's the ultimate revenge, because by forgiving you are saying, "Your capacity to affect me is so insignificant, you have no power, nothing. Your past actions have become nothing at all, as if they never existed, worthless."
Forgiveness is the ultimate flex.
Look what Jesus did on the cross. He pities his killers. Rightly so, but who pulls a flex like that? Jesus does. Pretty cool. And very enlightened.
I think THIS article undersells the “Hold a Grudge” payoff:
> David feels justified but might damage the relationship and stop Samantha from learning from her mistake.
Most relationships have an ongoing bargaining element to them. Exchange of services, tit for tat, quid pro quo, pay each others backs, etc. Even when we pretend they don’t, or obscure them by wrapping higher level words around them. What makes forgiving hard, is that when we feel wronged, we feel it gives us a better bargaining position go forward. If we forgive, we fear it devalues or weakens our bargaining power going forward. Why else are we so tempted in a debate to rejoin with “yeah, well you do <fill in the blank wrong thing> too!”
To clarify, I AM a big fan and proponent of forgiveness. I aspire to be better at. But I think this article has missed a key part of the dillema, by not better portraying the real allure of not forgiving.