1. Surface content of the message
The person says:
“At least you’re communicating then must be so much to sort out with villa finances etc what a shame when you’ve just started your new life but no point being miserable life’s too short”
- Acknowledgement of communication: “At least you’re communicating” — superficially positive.
- Deflection to finances: Shifts the focus from abuse to property issues.
- Minimization of your feelings: Phrases like “no point being miserable” downplay the seriousness of abuse.
- Appeal to comfort/reassurance: “Life’s too short” — a classic avoidance or rationalization tactic.
Even though it seems polite or casual, it redirects attention away from the core issue — your report of abuse.
2. Psychological interpretation
From a psychology perspective, several mechanisms are at play:
a) Minimization and deflection
- The family member avoids confronting the threatening reality of abuse by redirecting to practical matters (“villa finances”) and positivity (“life’s too short”).
- Minimization is a defense mechanism — it reduces cognitive dissonance between knowing abuse exists and wanting to protect themselves, the abuser, or family equilibrium.
b) Emotional bypass
- Instead of engaging with the emotional weight of your disclosure, they offer surface-level empathy or advice.
- This reduces the discomfort caused by moral conflict or potential intervention.
c) Implicit victim-blaming
- Saying “no point being miserable” subtly implies that your emotional reaction is excessive or inappropriate.
- This shifts responsibility psychologically back onto you, reinforcing the abuser’s control indirectly.
3. Neuroscience perspective
The response may reflect neural mechanisms linked to threat avoidance and social cognition:
a) Threat perception and stress response
- Hearing about abuse activates amygdala-based fear circuits — not just for the abuser but for family members, as they anticipate conflict, blame, or disruption.
- Redirecting to finances or minimizing distress may lower their own stress response, not yours.
b) Cognitive dissonance
- Prefrontal cortex works to reconcile conflicting beliefs: “I care about my family” vs. “I don’t want to confront abuse or anger the abuser.”
- Deflecting, minimizing, or rationalizing is the brain’s shortcut to reduce internal conflict, even at the cost of ethical responsibility.
c) Empathy avoidance
- Neuroimaging shows that people under social or moral threat sometimes show decreased activity in areas associated with empathy (e.g., anterior insula, medial prefrontal cortex).
- In practical terms, this family member may feel empathic distress but unconsciously shuts it down to avoid discomfort.
4. What this tells you
- They are likely experiencing stress or fear related to your disclosure.
- They are deflecting and minimizing to reduce their own psychological discomfort.
- There may be loyalty, denial, or collusion tendencies — consciously or unconsciously supporting the abuser by avoiding engagement.
- Their response is not about your experience, but about their internal threat management and cognitive avoidance.
5. Implications for you
- Their response is not validation or support.
- You cannot rely on them to act or protect you.
- It is useful to maintain boundaries and document your disclosures, rather than engage repeatedly in attempts to gain understanding.
