Rolling Stops: Skirting Along the Edge of Disaster

A counselor years ago told me that healthy people view bad choices or decisions as stop signs and take heed of them.   From what I understand, have heard and seen, a full-blown addict will either not see the stop sign, deny the stop sign exists or just resign themselves to the fact the 'brakes are shot' and not make a serious attempt to stop. 

That is to say, they

• Will not see the choice or decision they are making as bad (delusional)
• I'm stopping in for one drink to celebrate with friends.
• They cannot see them that one drink leads to another and before you know it, you are being carried out drunk.
• Will minimize the impact of the choices or decision they make (denial) 
• No one will know if I lie/steal/cheat.
• The problem is even if no one else knows--which often is no accurate anyway--such behavior changes who you are.
• Will know the stop sign is there and say well there's nothing I can do anyway (resignation). 
• What does it matter if I gamble my last bit of money, I'm screwed anyway.
• They cannot see that even in a bad situation that looks hopeless, that you can make it worse.
• This is fatalistic.

Like many people, I've done what law enforcement would consider a rolling stop.  After one particular time, it occurred to me, some people do actually see the rhetorical stop sign and heed it (mostly).   They know there is a stop sign and they know proceeding without hesitating or making an attempt to checking if it is safe to go into the intersection is bad.   They know it is a disaster waiting to happen.  So, they stop short of just running the stop sign and look out for oncoming traffic before finishing their pause.  In reality they are tempting fate.  That is to say, they catch the danger most of the time and are able to stop their momentum and do a complete stop if necessary.  However, it just takes one time of rolling at stop and misjudging traffic to get hit by another car they've missed after a quick glance.  To me this describes a person with some addictive or at-risk tendencies.  Like a recovering alcoholic who drives by a bar he used to frequent when he has an a good alternative route or a recovering gambler who carries too much cash on him as he passes by the casino, they are just asking for trouble.   They may be able to resist feeding their addiction, for a day, a week, a month or a year or more, but eventually they are a putting themselves in a dangerous position of relapsing.   Yes, they may be able to get away with their 'rolling stop' for a long while, but eventually they risk getting 'hit' by their addiction. 

As always my posts are a reflection of my experiences, the experiences of those surrounding me or my observations about the world that surrounds me and it they aren't meant to be considered scientific research or indisputable fact.  However, I am always hopeful that through my words, others will find comfort, relate-ability or just a different or new perspective.

Thanks for reading and remember: it is better to follow the 'rules' and always practice doing a full stop, so when it is time that it is absolutely necessary to do a full stop you will be so practiced at it, that you will be likely to make the wisest choice under pressure.

Cheers,
Rich

Denial, part 2: How we view and face problems

With a contentious election fast approaching, there is no denying that we are a country with problems.  Either way we vote, that is/will be true.  Anyway, I was talking with a friend today about how we deal with problems as a society.

It occurred to me as a society we have a number of different ways we deal with major issues.  There are:

• Those who want to be part of the solution
• Those who see the problem and feel compelled to face it head on. 
•  For example, as a resident of the region around Ferguson, for me, this could be someone who sees the distrust between law enforcement and the minority community and instead of dismissing one side, listen to concerns of all sides.  That doesn't mean necessarily seeing equal culpability, but means respectfully treating the concerns of those who legitimately want peace.

• Those who are fine with the problem.
• Those who know they are part of problem and don't care as it benefits them.
• In the Jim Crow era, many people benefited from keeping keeping discriminatory laws in place for various reasons such as keeping political power or of fear of competition (such as in sports).
• Those who don't don't see themselves as being part of the problem, but are.
• They often justify their own behavior as legitimate even , therefore not problematic.  For example, self-promoters who justify jumping into a conflict/controversy claiming to want to help this person or this group when their hidden motive is profit/power--with an end result of inflaming the situation.

• Those who see the problem, but want to push them aside.
• Those who see the cost of dealing with the problem as "too expensive".
• Either the problem seems too intractable and therefore too stressful, so just like a car with curious annoying noise, it is easier to turn up the music and pretend the problem doesn't exist.
• Personally or as a society dealing with certain issues, means giving up something such as time, money or comfort.

• Those who see the problem, but convince themselves the problem is minimal or has an easy solution.
• For them, it is easier to live with not concerning themselves with the size or complexity of problem than it is to actually face a problem.
• For example, our national budget.  Some people believe if we just raise taxes on the 'rich' enough that we will be able to pay for programs.  
• Also, racial issues.  We know that there are underlying problems, but is we don't have to live the issues daily, it is easier to convince ourselves that the problem is limited to 'this' or 'that' area.

My friend mentioned another way or category of people and how they deal with problems, which I though was insightful.

• Those who blame the messenger, ignoring the message.
• Politicians are famous for this.  They are confronted with a message that is not necessarily favorable to them and they turn around and attack the messenger's credibility.  Their hope is to distract from having to answer the message.  
• For example, a whistle-blower who publicizes a secret program of questionable constitutionality is often attacked by those are tied to the program.

---

I'm not sure what my takeaway from this blog is except this.  

1. It is best to face problems completely head-on if at all possible.  
2. When you can't face it completely, face it in steps and where necessary let it be known that's what you are doing.
3. Sometimes it is necessary to push aside facing problems to deal with larger problems that arise.  But, that doesn't mean permanently facing dealing with the original problem.

Just my musings for the day.

-- Rich

Denial: The lies we tell ourselves to cope.