A conundrum

[mizarchivist]

This came up today in the course of conversation.
Situation: There's a problem between 2 parties. A wants something from B.Money and information being the top condenders on this one. A will continue to contact B until the issue is resolved, but B steadfastly ignores all communication even though the easier path is to give in and DO it already. A doesn't want blood, afterall. Or do they?? The Red Cross are a tricky bunch.
Would someone like to wade in with theories as to why B chooses this less comfortable path?

Comments

[catness.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I have any insight about *that* issue, but I'll give you some about my own issues. :)

Why I Avoid: If someone called me a bunch of times and I didn't want to talk to them in the first place, I would really really really not want to talk to them until I was absolutely sure this was the last time I would ever have to talk to them again. So, if all my ducks weren't already in a row, I wouldn't want to deal until they were. But that's just me. I'm fucked that way.

[cos]

local minima. it's more comfortable now.

alternately, preading more discomfort over a longer time can be a win over concentrating a smaller amount of discomfort over a much shorter time.

possible long term thinking: right now is not the time B is ready to deal with it, but another time might be.

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

If that is the case, B could always tell A that: "I hear you, I am unable to deal with this issue at this time, give me N days/weeks and we can revisit." A can then choose to wait, or go stand on B's head and force the issue (and A doesn't get to be surprised when B bites A's head off for doing that).

[cos]

That can be an uncomfortable admission. Also, it acknowledges having received the communication and understood it, which means B can exert more pressure (since it's now acknowledged by both), which could make the intervening time more or differently uncomfortable for A.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

A has to make it clear that B has that option with no repurcussions. Both in words and in actions.

But yeah, I've known people who don't pay their bills and loans, or do their taxes, because they don't have money. And they just ignore any written communication, and screen their phone calls, instead of just saying, "hey, you know what? I can't do this. Stop calling me."

Basically, the local minima theory.

If you're trying to get something out of someone, and it's not "hey, I need you to pay your phone bill", the best way to do it is to try different tactics. B has a way of dealing with the phone calls, obviously. Try calling from a different phone so they pick up not knowing it's you. Find them and talk in person.

But the reason? They don't want to deal with it. Even if it's easier on them in the long run, even if it means doom and gloom in the long run, people will tend to do what's easiest now.

[beowabbit]

I think cos’ “local minima” theory is right on for most cases.

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

Ignoring someone *is* the more comfortable path, to a lot of folks. Some people think if they ignore something long enough, it will Go Away. Does it work? Sometimes. Is it likely to work in this case? I'm going to guess 'no', but that won't stop B from ignoring A. A will probably have to go stand on B's head to get B to even discuss/acknowledge the issue. Blech.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Would someone like to wade in with theories as to why B chooses this less comfortable path?

A better question to my eye from that extremely limited example is, Why does A think B is obligated to cater to A's wants?

[missionista.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I go with this as well. Maybe this thing that seems so important to A really doesn't matter to B at all. Why should B care? Why should B bother giving up information and cash? Who says giving in would be more comfortable? A? B probably doesn't think so.