Bathtub people

In any group of sufficient size there will be one or more that don't mesh well. People who mean well and participate but who seem to provide nothing but objection, discord, and wasted time over insignificant issues.

I'm not too enthusiastic about the metaphor of the bathtub, a downhill run and blast mean a bathtub might have advantages, but if you can get past it there are many good points and useful observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2011/04/bathtubs_macgyver_and_the_ones.php

In my experience divergent viewpoints are frustration precisely because they represent some part of the human condition I'm not comfortable with. I also note that if you are part of a group the groups views will need to be reconciled with these unpalatable views.

It also has to be noted that rejecting people outright can cause a dedicated coalition that will dedicate efforts against your efforts. Often this happens even as the annoyance is removed and they hold you no grudge. Holding no grudge often magnifies their status as martyr.

An alternative is to find some way to fit them in even if it seems to waste time and provide constant annoyance. It is better to have the annoyance in the tent shooting out than have them outside shooting in.

It is also a great truth that it is a certainty that someone around you considers you to be the bathtub. Odds are someone around you is looking at you and imagining how their life would be better if you were to suffer a timely cerebral aneurysm. Perhaps, just a small one.

How do we come to terms with the other?

Must we?

That is kind of the point. Not dealing with difficult people has some rather steep penalties. Dealing with them isn't necessarily a lot easier. Either way you are going to pay a price.

The difference between a group that works and one that doesn't is often a matter of how they handle this issue. It is one of the first tests of any leader.

edit spelling

My son and I discussed this just this morning while watching a rerun of Les Stroud's "Survive This". One of the kids clearly thought she was auditioning for a different show. She whined, complained and generally seemed to make life difficult for everyone until she finally had the good sense to go home.

The difference in real life is that there often isn't an opt out or kick out option. Ya gets what ya gets.

Some people are happy being miserable or arguing. There are 3 basic strategies if you can't find middle ground: Put up and shut up, break-away or start digging a hole to bury the body.

Must we?

How about changing the context so there is no "other", just one of our brothers or sisters, someone who - like us - has strengths and weaknesses.

Let's tell stories and ideas about bathtub people and their successful conversion to -people.

I have seen whiners given responsibility for something not too important suddenly find they like being recognized for contributing to group success.

I have seen apparent dead weight come to life when asked what they wanted to do and then given a chance to do, or work toward doing.

I have seen very negative folks co-opted by putting them in charge of reviewing something for its pros and cons.

What other strategies have worked?

At l;east, we have to LEARN to deal with such people because they may not alwys be total starngers.

Imagine that "Janice" is your wife, plus you have a teenager with "issues" , imagine the kid has autism or such... and you find yourself and family in a survival situation.

We need to upgrade our psychologial efficiency of tolerating tough conditions and tough people. That should be one of the survival skills to learn before SHTF. Imagine yourself sandwitched between two self-centered persons, each sees the whole world from an extremely narrow and completely different window. If you do not maintain your calm , your brain and nerves will disintegrate quickly.

I've done some learning about this recently for work and my 3 big takeaways were:

1. People do not want to be useless or hindrances
2. Difficult behaviours often arise from fundamentally good motivations
3. Understanding the motivation behind the behaviour helps you move beyond the difficult behaviour

Also key is, I am (and you are) sometimes the difficult person. Understanding our own core motivation and what unwanted behaviours we tend to manifest are just as important.

This learning was largely based on the book Dealing with Difficult People.

I have found in large groups people want to be led. Most people will follow a leader based on (in no particular order); results, charisma, competency, 'rank'/position, confidence, moral ascendancy, strength, endurance.

There tend to be two types of leaders in a group, the assumed leader based on an established hierarchy who may or may not have experience, then the person with the experience, compassion and wisdom, that people are drawn to naturally. IMO it is best when these are the same person.

What I have found in my experience is that you really don't have to worry about the 95% of the people in the group that follow you its the 5% that are caustic, uncooperative that you need to work with. When you can identify those people and bring them around to your goal or the group goal, then the problem tends to solve itself. By only focusing on those that are already in your camp, and belittling, ignoring the 5%, it creates a group schism.

There was something about this just recently, about people in the recent disasters in Japan. I think it was in a link, and there are lots of links, so I'm depending on my faulty memory.

It said something about how most of the people of a community worked together, but there were some individuals who thought they didn't have to do anything. The rest of the community gave these people something to do that seemed important to them, and gave them a title, and the do-nothings came around to decide that their job was necessary and began to work with the others.

Can't just drown them in the bathtub, eh? Okay, on to Plan B...

Sue

Well, Susan, I wish it was that simple. Sometimes people cause you stress by pointing you in two opposing directions, and putting their sticks between your feet.

Latest example, I was busy at work and someone was training us on some instrument. Boss came asking me to move a few things to another place ... That task blows up my nerves cause it means (move those things AGAIN to 'another' place, and after a week I am sure that I have to find yet 'another' place for that stuff).

I didn't even want to move that stuff because it is delicate and shouldn't be constantly and haphazardly moved ... plus it has been moved two times earlier. Why don't they plan and make up their minds and make a final decision ??

Long story short.. We went ( me and the boss )
I told him I would move things to THIS cabinet, and no one should ask me to move them again.

I was already beyond upset because the cabinet was not empty. Someone had filled it with junk. I had to first empty and clean the shelves, and then move our things in. At that point, I was already missing things in the training.

He saw the stuff and started asking all kinds of stupid questions. Then started taking them one by one and checking (Grrrr ). I was standing behind him and his body was blocking me from starting the cleanup. I almost grabbed him by his shirt to shove him aside and finish the job ASAP and go back to training.

So, he wanted me to do the job, and HE was the biggest obstacle stopping me from doing the job. Grrrrr.

You know what ??
Next day he will ask me : have you finsihed your training ?

Only thing that works with such people is to try NOT to have them around when you have a survival situation.

They are messy, unorganized, with no sense of priorities.
And they are boss.

How can it be any worse ??

I worked with a co-worker for over 30 years that I viewed as a second father, easy going, never frazzled. One of the most important lessons he taught me was to go with the flow. Whenever he was confronted with a task that seemed utterly ridiculous, his standard answer was “it all pays the same”. Bosses and co-workers can, if you let them make life miserable, but if you (at least for me) approach your job/life as did my co-worker your tolerance level really rises.

Pete

Well -

I have no children to worry about. 2 cats, and they are hugely insane and sometimes a handful, but they can be caged.

DW has almost the same mindset I do, on some things she is more forceful, on others not so much. We tend to mesh nicely - I handle stuff, she handles food and clothes.

Cooperating in groups. My time in the service showed there are leaders, followers, subject matter experts, and sheep. Cull the sheep, they do only what is told, nothing more, and may do jobs poorly. You either lead, assist the leader, or don't let the door hit ya on the way out. You keep subject matter experts around if and only if they are useful - like docs, nurses, farmers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, engineers. The social scientists and the lawyers, see ya, don't want to be ya (and at one time I was a sociology major and a paralegal, but learned useful skills despite my handicapped learning).

The people I will join with more than likely all think about the same way DW and I do. Best case we escape to her family's area, worst case we ride it our here

The boss is your brother in law? And yes, mine is and is getting quite unbearable ATM

There are few strategies I've tried. They don't always work but sometimes situations will surprise me and come together.

A turn that often works is to simply ask people to work with you. A simple 'Please, work with me on this' often works wonders. It isn't a long term solution, people will eventually want to negotiate an understanding, but it might gain cooperation in the heat of a disaster situation.

This goes along with the general principle that asking goes a long way. A lot of people will help, some will make huge contributions, but they need/like to be asked. Very old school to suggest politeness and asking directly advances your cause but it is, in my experience, always a good start.

It also pays not to assume you know who the useful, versus the not useful people might be. IMO the point is to make the best of the situation where you don't have a lot of control over the raw material you are given to work with. For example don't write off the lawyers. A popular assumption is that SHTF and laws won't count. History tells a different story. Throughout history disasters may disrupt the legal system but the system always reasserts itself. You might want some legal advice during a disaster because it is pretty much a sure thing that you will be facing judgment when it all stops spinning. Helping, or failing to help, and certainly any use of force, are opening for legal issues later. A little legal advice might be good.

The other point is that people are not one dimensional. One of the finest cabinetmakers, specialized in using all hand tools and 16th century techniques, is a lawyer. It also has to be noted that just because someone is trained as a lawyer they can't tote a pack, swing an axe, herd kids, hold an injured person's hand. With electricity off and fuel in short supply a lot of things are going to have to be done by hand.

In times of uncertainty, and there are few things that sow uncertainty better than a disaster, people need to be needed. Everyone wants to feel useful and useful part of a team. A person may be borderline hysterical but if you find them a job a lot of them will settle down. Simple repetitive jobs can be calming.

Don't overlook the many paperwork jobs that need to be done. Every group disaster kit can do with a large supply of 3by5 cards and pencils. Every person has a card made out for them. Everything goes onto the card. Name, age, home address, etcetera gets noted. Then you can add special needs, injuries, skills and contact information. Nobody likes paperwork but, for better or worse, paperwork is the currency of administration and administration is the core of group management.

You can't manage a group if you don't know how many people there are. You need to know details about how many men, women, children there are. You need to know about how many people need medications. How many have special food requirements?

lawyers, administrators, secretaries, clerks, and middle management are often the best at this necessary paperwork. Use them. Orphaned children are often better off if you assign an adult to be their temporary and provisional guardian. Isolated people who are infirm and/or otherwise unable to fend for themselves may also benefit from assigning a guardian. They still need supervision but it is surprising how making such linkages can help both the guardian and their charge. Pressed into service difficult people may surprise you and shine.

"Well, Susan, I wish it was that simple. Sometimes people cause you stress by pointing you in two opposing directions, and putting their sticks between your feet."

Oh, I was just pointing out that the concept worked for them. I don't have the patience. DO IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY is where I usually stand.

Personally, I prefer to lock the idiots out in the -45F blizzard or shove them off a cliff.


"Shhh, grab the dogs and get into the car and close the windows! Hurry!"

"Why?"

"There's a bear coming!"

"Really? Where?"

You know the joke about not having to run fast enough to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU? I suspect there's more truth to that than most people realize.

I went to a safety meeting recently where the Operation Lifesaver presenter was talking about how stupid some people are around trains and crossing. Quite a good video of car/train and truck/train encounters, a lot of stupid in a short time. The metal recycling people would have been drooling.

I know it sounds insensitive at best and callous at worst, but there are a lot of people out there who have managed to survive simply because other people have kept them safe. Let them off their leash and they make the newspapers and the Darwin Awards.

* You can't fix stupid people, and you often can't save them no matter how hard you try. Don't try too hard, they may kill you in the process.

* The shallow end of the gene pool has a lot of rocks, and really DOES need more chlorine. And you don't even have to hold their heads under, they'll do it themselves.

* If stupid people walk between mainline RR tracks with a cellphone against one ear and a finger jammed in the other, are you really doing the world a favor if you tell them Amtrak is coming at 79 mph?

* Isn't it irritating when stupid is the rule, rather than the exception? My sister works for a hospital where you can't get fired. Oh, maybe if you stabbed a doctor or something, but if you just stabbed him and he didn't die, they would probably just tell you not to do it again and forget about it. They wouldn't even make you clean up the blood.

* You may have noticed that there's no old saying about "Survival of the dumbest".

Sometimes they just aren't worth the time or the effort.

Resuscitate? Why? He just reached his Peter Principle level.

Cynical Sue (who else?)

Be careful not to write someone off simply because of some lable like a job title. We are not only what we do. If you assume we are you may just be setting yourself up to become the bathtub person yourself.

Stupid is as stupid does, not what hat stupid wears.

"Be careful not to write someone off simply because of some lable like a job title."

That would be stupid, wouldn't it? As in the old play, The Admirable Crichton, where a class-conscious British group is stranded on an island, and only the butler has the skills to keep them alive.

Your company janitor (if the job hasn't been outsourced) is likely to be more useful than the CEO.

Sue

The micromanagers can actually be fairly usefull. They don't play well with others, but tend to be detail oriented if left on their own. Give them a project that only needs one person, has a high level of exactness, and doesn't have a critical deadline. It will be done to perfection, be delivered very late, and it'll keep them out of your hair.

The biggest personality hazard is the enthusiastic amateur. Plenty of effort, but they have no idea what they're doing. They do so much collateral damage, it's better to have them sit on the sidelines or given tasks that don't require any degree of precision that can not be obtained with a 10 lb sledge hammer.

a person's learning style greatly influences the way he participates in a group project....you might want to look at the works of Edward de Bono, and his "Six Thinking Hats"....to help identify a student's learning style, I used the basic premise as a class activity... by letting my students choose which colored folder they wanted for their class notes... the color matched their self described personalities pretty well

...also you might look at the Gregoric Delineative, but it has lost some favor...the correlation between learning styles and brain dominance with the students was an on going project for me, especially with my student athletes and their reaction times.. I had very bright science students that had difficulty doing sequential problem solving steps, particularly factor-label Stoichiometric sequences ... to streamline the terminology, I standardized two... global and concrete sequential, and attempted to help the students learn their particular style, to help them better navigate my class (I'm concrete sequential, and taught that way)

what shook out was a correlation between brain dominance and reaction times...opposite side of brain dominates eg. right hemisphere controls left side of body

by dropping a ruler, and allowing them to catch it with, and without warning eg. 3, 2, 1, drop....they could convert the distance to a time (d = 1/2 att)

left handed ... close to .10 sec or less

right handed, dominant left eye .... < .14sec

right handed, dominant right eye, when fingers interlaced and thumbs overlapped end up with left thumb on top >.15

right handed, dominant right eye, right thumb on top >.20sec

the quickest tended to be very global, and had the hardest time doing sequential tasks...tended to like history, literature
the slowest tended to like math and science

always maintained we put the wrong person in the cockpit of a fighter .... really needed the quy/girl with the quickest reaction time not an engineer...

The problem with any statistical method or general form of classification will be the outliers. For what little it is worth I am an engineer and in various physiology tests back in my college days I had very, very quick reaction times relative to the normal population. Of course to confuse the matter further I am right handed, left footed, eye dominance varies by task and my fine motor control is relatively poor (even I can't read my handwriting).

I regularly work with pilots (often former fighter pilots) and while I'm sure reaction time is important the pilots I know maintain that being able to manage the aircraft systems (very sequential stuff) while maintaining situational awareness (a much more global skill) is the key to success. That makes the best very rare.

People are individuals and must be taken and treated as such.

- Eric

Sadly we all need to put up with difficult people sometime in one sphere or another.

If you’re not the leader then as Pete says “it all pays the same”. Yes it can be annoying, but when it comes to work I reason that I’m payed to be here X hours and how I fill in those hours is up to the boss, if he wants me to wants me to run in circles, then fine.

But when you are in the leadership position or this person is obstructing me in my pursuits, then its different. As Art_in_fl and Denis say, you can ask for cooperation and try and understand what is the reason behind the objection, sometimes the reasons behind an objection can be resolved, sometimes you can use that to persuade them to cooperate, or at least raise their objections with you and not disrupt an entire team.

… not to say I wouldn’t find a few of Sue’s suggestions agreeable … Perhaps we should all print out her list and add a few more to the bottom to blow off steam ?

Great subject we should never have enough discussion about

I was reminded of this thread by Denis in a similar thread about difficult personalities.

Oh, they come in all shapes and forms.

One time I was driving my new car and one of these difficult guys starts pressing all buttons BEFORE asking what they do . He started AC, he stopped AC, he started radio and continued to go all over the car, opening glove compartment and asking about this or that ( some of which were prepper stuff like multiple flashlights ... etc. ). You cannot tell him that he is a pain in the nack , nor can you drive easily in the traffic jam with a guy going all over and asking you all kinds of questions. This is just one example about his character.


Just as I was typing this, another difficult personlaity came and said Hi. OK, he started asking if I have seen this or that . I answered briefly that I spent my time doing other things. He decided that I shouldnt have missed it and picked up MY desk phone to call someone who knows which TV station or website that will give me "another chance" to see it. I FIRMLY told him that I don't want to see it. I am NOT interested. Plus he cannot even see that I am busy on the computer.

I find it interesting that all the comments assume that there must be a "leader". Guess it is the standard mindset of this part of the world. However there are groups without a leader. In fact much of the worlds smaller isolated groups operate by consensus. A concept almost entirely ignored in our society.

In short, it is a technique where everyone in the group decides on a course of action. The discussion continues until everyone agrees. Mostly folks in our world consider it impractical. "There is always a leader" they say. Or, it takes too long.

However in an isolated society, the group is interdependent and must include everyone. Consensus is a workable solution, just terribly foreign to our mindset.

There are a number of good consensus methods adapted to our mindset published on the net. See:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

It does take some "getting used to" if one is from a hierocratical world as most of us are. Actually it drove me nuts the fist time I experienced it. The talk went on forever...

But the eventual solution included everyone and tasks were then completed quickly.

Nomad

Was the total time required quicker than a more "top down" solution?

Depends entirely on the situation and the personalities involved. Sometimes a strong leader can just step in and be accepted, other times one or more people in the group will balk at a strong hand. Sometimes you can lead without anyone realizing you're the leader and that they are being led.

I've been in situations where a number of people on a committee each had their own idea. Any one of the options would have worked, and all the leader needed to do was pick one at random. Instead, nothing was resolved and we came away with no solution at all.


That would be the people in Marketing.

Not usually. And I doubt consensus would work well in our society. However, in a small to medium sized group that needs to function over a long term, it has many other benefits.

Primarily the inclusion of everyone in decisions. It keeps tensions from building and virtually eliminates the creation of a pecking order which can become so decisive. Which is why I brought it up in response to the original post.

Also, since everyone participates, they all know the reasoning behind the decision. This leads to more individualized action that supports the goal.

This leaderless process also is difficult to defeat. Since all understand the goal and have bought into it, there is no key individual (except for skills). Therefore if some are injured etc, the process continues.

The Rand Corp. did a study of consensus (also called mesh or web) decision group types and found that when the two methods (top down vs consensus) conflicted (warfare) the consensus group always won. This is what makes asymmetrical warfare so difficult.

Sorry about running on so, that is probably far more than you wanted to know.

Nomad

Nomad, you brought the thread to an interesting territory

I am interested in prepping
Also interested in public safety

From my own experience , and a seminar I heard lately, lots and lots of people are NOT concerned with safety , much less prepping. The speaker mentioned dwindling audience in their CPR and first aid mini-courses (which are free, BTW)

My thoughts are like this : when you talk of consensus , you need people thinking on the same wavelength. However, what I see around me is people who are nuts about sports (and almost nothing else), people who are nuts about politics, people who are nuts about money and doing anything (moral or not ) to get more money. Different groups with different narrow areas of focus

You may say, well, focus on one group at a time. So, sports people can get together ( without the politics type of people) and run a concensus. Well, sorry to say they are also divided as fans of this club or that. Ditto for the politics people. They spend times reading the papers and cusring this politician or that party. They do not seem to able to sit together and agree on anything constructive.

So, can you shed more light on how a community can come together and agree on anything ??? If they couldn't agree on teh imprtance of safety , CPR, and such ( which are offered free of charge ! ) how can they come to agree on anything else.

why do you use the term "bathtub people" ?

What can you say? The World is changing?

I dont get it either so we have to look within and like BIL said yesterday he preps (in the all inclusive sense of the word) because it might be needed,and if it isnt then all the better.And he does it as he see's fit,letting the World do as they see fit too.Then trying to work around them and not get steamrollered over by em.

Consensus,sheesh after the last election and what the locals voted for,I can see I have little in common with the pack. No groups for me!

Going to just have our own little pack I guess.

The term "bathtub people" comes from the article Art linked to in the original post: Bathtubs: A Theory of Community Relations


I agree that with a small group that consensus can work well. For example, this is pretty much how things get done by the leadership of our Cub pack; even though I am the section leader, most of the decisions are made by the group using something similar to the consensus model described (though in an informal way ... its just naturally how its worked out).

Just thinking out loud, but perhaps the key with the consensus model is ensuring your are only including the appropriate people at the appropriate times. Back to the example of my Cub pack, it works because we look for consensus within the leadership team, not within the pack as a whole. We solicit feedback and ideas from the kids, but they aren't involved in the final decision making processes.

Also, I think consensus has to be limited to a degree. I could definitely see issues arising if you try to micro manage with it. For example, the group could agree we should do a first aid course and who should run it, but then the group can let that person work out the details and trust them to deliver it.

All that said, I do think its important for the buck to stop somewhere; one person who will ultimately accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of the group. Because of this added responsibility, this person also needs to be granted the ability to set the bounds of what the group does, with consensus being used to work out the details.

We are consensus in this family 'community',but the buck stops here,I get the final say.As head of household.And putting family first always over my needs.

Its a biblical concept and works for us.Not too PC but you have to have some sort of final decision making.Figure its worked for lots for a long time,so thats what we do.

About concensus and "flat" (non top down) societies.
A long time ago, I was in the Air Force. One of the people I worked with was a stunning native american woman. Over time, she introduced me to her partner, another quite attractive native american woman. I became sort of their chaparone (for lack of a better word) and would accompany them when ever they went out. It helped to keep the drooling hords at bay for them to be sitting with a 6'2" 250 lb guy. And for an 18 year old kid from a Chicago suburb, they were facinating.

One of the subjects we discussed was how their culture accepted their lesbian relationship. Gradually I understood that there was no standard moral code. No "right" way to be. Everyone traveled a different path and came to a different understanding about how life is to be lived. Also, everyone accepted the others point of view, no matter how it differed from their own. I had a real problem understanding, I mean really understanding how a group could function if there was no standard moral code. But it worked, and eventually I found it to be a very inviting concept. It is much more complex than I can relate in a few paragraphs, it took me the better part of a year to grasp some of the finer points.

For instance, if I were a member of the group, and I brought a chainsaw into the community, the person with the most skill with a chain saw was responsible for its safe use. I would comply with the requirements, that the "expert" would specify. To do otherwise would not be a slam against the expert, but show that I was not worthy and was actually down right stupid. The expert did not want to be responsible, but because of his acknowledged skill, he felt bound to be sure that the novice learned the correct methods.

These two concepts, everyones worldview is valid, and the roll of the expert/novice seem contradictory. They are not. One more example.

In my daughters high school class in Cuenca Ecuador, if one student did not have his/her homework done by the deadlne, the whole class did not turn in their homework, even though there was a penalty for not turning it in.

These three examples hopefully illuminate some of the differences between our culture and some others. In each of these groups, the group cohesion is very important, yet the individuality of each member is upheld.

In the native american group there were no leaders. If someone had to speak for the group, the best negotiator would be chosen, but that person had no special status.

The chain saw expert may appear to be in a leadership position, but really it is just a way to insure the safety of the group and assures that proper skills are passed throughout the group.

My daughters class responded to the close knit society by making sure everyone is included. If a student had difficulty understandind a concept, the remainder of the class would work together to help the person get the concept.

These are of course simple examples of very complex social situations. The point I am trying to make is that not every group needs a leader, not every group member needs to hold the same moral code to survive and competiton is not always the way it has to be.

Concensus is more than just a meeting management technique, it is a lifestyle. It can work to some extent in a "top down" society, but it is much more effective in a "flat" society. One that is interdependent. Where each persons future is tied in with the others. In this type of society, a "leader" is not needed or desired.

I don't think this exists very much in our current USA society. Our moblie lifestyle means that the person next door may not in any meaningful way be dependent on those around them except in cetain situations like disasters. Then they discover that interdependent need. Othewise, our group is not location dependent. We don't know our neighbors, we have no common interests and in fact work to avoid those in our closest proximity.

Perhaps this all has muddied the waters of the OP, but the bathtub person, and as the article noted, we are all, at some point a bathtub person, becomes the responsibility of the group, not an individual. The group works to use the attributes of the bathtub person and shares the "pain" of their shortcomings.

I am 73 now. A lot has happened since I sat enthralled by the world of those two women. But they launched me on a life long study of alternat cultures, at least alternate to my original culture. I see more of the flat society happening in the actions some of todays youth. They seem to see the advantages of a flat society and the disadvantages of the top down society. Guess the pendulum swings.

Life sure is interesting..

Nomad

Nomad, thank you for that post.

For me, voting a person out of the tribe would likely not be an option (unless the person suddenly loses their mind and becomes murderous or something outlandish like that). Anybody in my group during a survival situation will be a family member or a good friend of somebody. It's highly unlikely I'll suddenly form a group with total strangers. I don't even plan for a situation where I'm teaming up long-term with total strangers because there are too many unknown variables. I file that in the "ad-lib" category of survival because I have too many other scenarios to occupy my prep time. The useful thing for me to do is to learn techniques for dealing with the person who's not carrying their weight or who's causing undue friction.

Here's a story. I went out with my family to dinner at a restaurant and to the movies afterward. The movies were near my sister's house, centrally located. She had my niece (12) and nephew (17). We showed up at the movies, and my niece and nephew were dressed like it's mid-July. They are wealthy. Suddenly, it became my responsibility to provide them with clothing so they wouldn't be so cold, even though I was coming from 50 miles away. I gave my niece my jacket. I gave my nephew my relatively thick top shirt. I hope I'm never stuck with them in a survival situation. They could easily jeopardize my survival just by being clueless, and I'm not even talking about how my niece is in a rebellious know-it-all stage. However, at least I know the deal beforehand.

This is a good thread.