Thank you for this incredibly important point. You've articulated a crucial distinction that gets to the very heart of the kind of "kindness" I write about.
I completely agree with your critique of a certain "pathological kindness" we often see – the kind that is used to deflect responsibility and avoid uncomfortable truths. The examples you gave for this are perfect. When "kindness" is used to make external excuses for someone's failure ("it wasn't your fault, it was the market/immigrants/racism"), it's often not kindness at all. It's closer to pity, and as you rightly point out, it can undermine self-responsibility.
This is exactly why it's so important to distinguish that kind of external validation from the self-compassion discussed in the newsletter. They are fundamentally different.
The self-compassion I work with (and advocate for) is not about making excuses or avoiding truths. In fact, it's the opposite:It's about building the inner resilience and emotional stability required to face uncomfortable truths and take responsibility for our mistakes without being crushed by shame or self-criticism. In short, with this type of self-compassion, excuses and failure pretty much disappear from our vocabulary, liberating us to do our work with a clearer, more even-keeled mind.
I think of it this way:
Pathological Kindness says: "You didn't fail. It wasn't your fault." (This avoids responsibility).
Self-Compassion says: "Yes, I failed in this attempt, and I am responsible for my errors. That's okay, because failure is a part of the process of learning. I can analyze my mistakes, be kind to myself for being imperfect, and then take corrective action."
By contrast, a harsh inner critic often leads to burnout or defensiveness, making it harder for us to learn from mistakes and unfamiliar events. A compassionate internal position allows us to look at our errors clearly and honestly because we know that making a mistake doesn't diminish our fundamental worth or our ability to try again.
This is why my personal work ethic includes both "Behave compassionately toward myself" AND principles like "Think rationally" and "Act decisively and impactfully". They don't contradict each other; they work with each other. Self-compassion provides the resilience needed to uphold the other principles, especially when things get difficult.
You've given me a lot to think about, and you're right to be wary of any approach that encourages renouncing self-responsibility. I have found that self-compassion (the way I defined it above) can be a powerful, foundational tool that enables us to be more responsible and effective in the long run.
Does this distinction between responsibility-avoiding "kindness" and resilience-building "self-compassion" make sense from your perspective?
I really appreciate you pushing this conversation to a deeper level.
Thank you for this incredibly important point. You've articulated a crucial distinction that gets to the very heart of the kind of "kindness" I write about.
I completely agree with your critique of a certain "pathological kindness" we often see – the kind that is used to deflect responsibility and avoid uncomfortable truths. The examples you gave for this are perfect. When "kindness" is used to make external excuses for someone's failure ("it wasn't your fault, it was the market/immigrants/racism"), it's often not kindness at all. It's closer to pity, and as you rightly point out, it can undermine self-responsibility.
This is exactly why it's so important to distinguish that kind of external validation from the self-compassion discussed in the newsletter. They are fundamentally different.
The self-compassion I work with (and advocate for) is not about making excuses or avoiding truths. In fact, it's the opposite:It's about building the inner resilience and emotional stability required to face uncomfortable truths and take responsibility for our mistakes without being crushed by shame or self-criticism. In short, with this type of self-compassion, excuses and failure pretty much disappear from our vocabulary, liberating us to do our work with a clearer, more even-keeled mind.
I think of it this way:
Pathological Kindness says: "You didn't fail. It wasn't your fault." (This avoids responsibility).
Self-Compassion says: "Yes, I failed in this attempt, and I am responsible for my errors. That's okay, because failure is a part of the process of learning. I can analyze my mistakes, be kind to myself for being imperfect, and then take corrective action."
By contrast, a harsh inner critic often leads to burnout or defensiveness, making it harder for us to learn from mistakes and unfamiliar events. A compassionate internal position allows us to look at our errors clearly and honestly because we know that making a mistake doesn't diminish our fundamental worth or our ability to try again.
This is why my personal work ethic includes both "Behave compassionately toward myself" AND principles like "Think rationally" and "Act decisively and impactfully". They don't contradict each other; they work with each other. Self-compassion provides the resilience needed to uphold the other principles, especially when things get difficult.
You've given me a lot to think about, and you're right to be wary of any approach that encourages renouncing self-responsibility. I have found that self-compassion (the way I defined it above) can be a powerful, foundational tool that enables us to be more responsible and effective in the long run.
Does this distinction between responsibility-avoiding "kindness" and resilience-building "self-compassion" make sense from your perspective?
I really appreciate you pushing this conversation to a deeper level.