Okay, get ready for a gloriously stream-of-conscious post. I have thought about this approximately 0% before deciding to delve into it. A good friend posited the idea to me that people have the propensity towards one central "sin" more than any other. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to be operating under the assumption that we're discussing the "seven deadly" sins.
Lust, Greed, Pride, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, and Wrath. (I only memorized them because of Fullmetal Alchemist. I suck)
My immediate reaction was that people are capable of all sorts of sin in tandem. I am... beginning to have hesitations about how I've approached the discussion at all though. So, I'm going to step back and define each of the "sins" and give them a bit more of a thorough examination.
1. Lust: Sexual desire. Being horny. Wanting someone as an object. I don't actually like that we've classified this as a sin. Lust is not only natural, but also healthy in a mutually respecting relationship between consenting participants. I've said it before in my other blog post on Objects and Subjects, but I think that objectification is completely acceptable in appropriate contexts.
Now obviously, if we obsess over Lust and allow it to rule our lives, we become beholden to disease, danger, and questionable choices. The more emphasis we place on one aspect of our lives, the less emphasis is due to the others. A matter of moderation (I may never stop with this theme. I am so sorry for subjecting you to this).
2. Greed: The desire to possess more than you currently do. This too is a natural predilection of humans, ingrained in our psychology by default. However, without boundaries, Greed is likely to consume and destroy your life, much in the same way any of the seven "sins" can. But doesn't Greed in moderation help us as well? Without ambition and drive, we accept complacency. Without passion to gain more, we fall into the trap of stagnation. We should be thankful for the things that we do have to our name, but does that mean we should accept the status quo? To that end, cannot Greed be completely justified?
At what point do we define desire as Greed? Did women who desired the right to vote count as "Greedy"? Does the impoverished who wants food every night count as "Greedy"? We're inclined to simply "feel" when someone is or is not greedy. Desiring "fairness" isn't Greed. But does that mean that wanting something someone else possesses doesn't count as Greed? Or is that Envy rather than Greed? (More on this thought in a little while)
What if I see a stray cat, and I want one as a result? Is that Greed?
What if it's a 50" TV instead of a cat? There's an intense hesitation to call the first Greed, but not the second. Why is that? Both are luxuries. Is there something about the responsibility carried with owning a pet that somehow negates the selfishness of wanting to own one?
Is Greed only justifiable if it measurably improves your life satisfaction? How could we possibly measure that, let alone hold others to it as a standard?
3. Pride: Pride holds with it much of the same connotations as "Honor." Zuko, anyone? Is it wrong to be prideful? Is it bad to be excited about the merits of your own actions? What about progress you've made? Confidence is only generated from positive feelings about yourself and your actions. Confidence is a virtual necessity to happiness, so without pride, there can be no true happiness, for in its place would rest self-doubt and insecurity.
The inverse, of course, is that we're too prideful. Arrogant. Narcissistic. Egotistical. Creatures without fault. This poses its own set of problems. With we have no humility- no sense of our own ability to do wrong- then we do not learn from our actions and we do not consider the implications of our deeds beyond what good they can cause.
Are you beginning to sense a pattern as well?
4. Envy: Much in the same vein as Greed, Envy is the desire for what is not yours. While Greed is the child that wants all of the toys, Envy is just the child that wants the toy you have. I hesitate to consider this a beneficial trait in any regard, since it's so superficial on the face of it. However, if we look at the psychological effects of Envy, we may still find some good in this "Sin." Untempered, Envy can simply consume you in the same way that Greed can. Focusing all of your energy on the goal of acquiring that which other people have. Obviously destructive no matter how you look at it.
But what if you had just a little Envy? What if you had just enough Envy to examine the things in your life in order to determine what's really important? Just enough Envy to see the things you truly want in the world? Without Envy, there's no direction from birth. We see other people having fun, living, loving, and laughing. We want that. With Envy, we have the drive to see what it is about peoples' lives that make them happy, and we seek to acquire it ourselves. Whether it's a friend who actually listens, a lover who actually respects, or a job that actually makes you happy. When we see the potential for others to be happier than we are, we see a path of progression; a method for moving forward.
Without Envy, we might be happy, but only because we don't know what would make us happier.
Perhaps Envy is the better "Sin" to attribute to women who wanted the right to vote. Freedom is the very essence of wanting access to what other people have in equal measurement by default. A respectable and worthy project, I would say.
5. Sloth: The tendency to not act. To do nothing. To relax, vegetate, and stop. From an immediate glance, it would seem an obviously problematic "Sin" that causes stagnation, encourages the status quo, and fights progress. However, if we look further, we see the problems of fatigue, workaholism, boundless ambition, and constant movement. Humans are not meant to go indefinitely. We're not meant to run without rest. To pursue without reflection. To fly without pause. Meditation has been proven to be an effective method of increasing our ability to learn. Napping has been proven to increase our energy. Brief moments of respite give us the ability to think about our actions before carrying on. In a world without Sloth, there is no inner-reflection, no thought, no consideration, and only a draining fatigue plastered over humanity's weary face.
6: Gluttony: To consume. To take. To receive. Gluttony is the essence of absorbing without giving back. We can be a glutton for a great many things; food, wisdom, punishment, friendships. To what end is it truly bad to want to consume? True enough, if we consume too much, it will destroy us. But if we consume too little, we will perish as well. Is it wrong to enjoy this delectable cinnamon bread next to me? Is it wrong to love and have a passion for the taking of anything? To become obsessed is dangerous. To develop tunnel vision prevents our ability to consider the wide world around us. To create an ideal out of something that is real is a detraction from the grace and beauty of the natural world.
But to lack Gluttony is to lack the pure excitement of receiving things in the world. Without passion, what's the point of living? If you're not studying a topic that you're a Glutton for, you're not studying a topic that you love. You're not pursuing an interest that is likely to make you truly happy.
So we must be gluttons to some extent. Otherwise, we will be bored, listless, and unhappy.
7: Wrath: To hate. The desire to destroy. To dismantle, to wreck, to obliterate.
An immediate part of me wants to disregard this "Sin" as bad from any angle. A cursory glance reveals no benefit to this kind of anger. However, to admit that would be to admit a philosophical inconsistency with my approach. It would be to give up on the existence of moderation in all traits.
Can we have guided hatred that is beneficially destructive? An odd question to be sure. Destruction can be good, yes. However, motivated by hatred, destruction doesn't tend to yield positive results. Motivated by revenge, we only persist the cycle of violence and vengeance. But can we ever truly want to dismantle something without the feeling of scorn?
This reminds me of the notion of "objectivity." My favorite professor once reminded me that objectivity doesn't exist. Our biases will always inform our thoughts, decisions, and words. Our environment will always bleed over into our ideas. The important thing is to admit where our biases come from; to admit our own prejudices.
To that end, perhaps we've been approaching Wrath the wrong way. Maybe it's completely natural to want vengeance. To want to destroy out of hatred. Maybe that's not wrong? But perhaps we should agree to be honest about when we have such anger towards something? It's okay to be angry. Anger is justifiable in some scenarios. People do things that merit angry responses. How we temper our Wrath in those situations is more important than whether or not we have it. How we approach utilizing our Wrath is important. Our ability to see our Wrath and recognize its effects on our mind is important.
Without the passion and drive of Wrath, we do not as easily have the motivation to act. It is because a situation infuriates us that we stand up for what we believe in. Wrath finely honed in this context can provide us with a limitlessly useful tool for change.
We cannot deny ourselves emotional range. We should not endeavor to become robots or complete stoics. We should, however, recognize our emotions for what they are and how they affect our thoughts. We should avoid allowing our desires to rule our lives, though we cannot possibly hope to live a full life without those same desires.
So I do not think considering them "Sins" is healthy in the first place. They are merely emotions. Desires. Thoughts that, like any other, we can have too much or too little of. To shun them for their potential to cause us harm is to ignore their potential to provide for us a progressive, satisfying, and healthy life.
Of course, here I've completely deconstructed the topic and I haven't actually responded to my friend's original position. Is it likely that we all have something we fail to moderate ourselves on? Absolutely. Is it likely that there's one trait more than any others specifically that could use improvement? Probably, yes.
So I suppose this is my roundabout way of agreeing with her, under the condition that we frame the conversation in less of a problematic "sin" discussion, and more of a natural human emotion discussion.
Oof... Life is complicated.
-
Waddles
Monday, December 2, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Korra Fumigation
Alright, so.
That last episode of Korra infuriated me and I need to write
about it. I need to rant about it.
As such, I’m interrupting the regularly scheduled nothing on
Tuesdays to bring you the reasons I was furious with the writing of the Legend
of Korra’s finale. Let’s get to it.
In no particular order, here are a large bunch of
generalized grievances:
- Bolin continues to be no Sokka. This is a minor grievance, to be sure, but it irks me all the same. Sokka had actual legitimate character growth as a master strategist in A:TLA. While he was the comic relief character, he progressed and struggled with the challenges of living up to his father’s legacy, dealing with being a non-bender in a bender’s world (and all the feelings of inadequacy that comes with that) and the humility of realizing how weak he is, requiring him to play off of the few strengths he does have. Bolin, by contrast, is the comic relief character who makes literally no development between the beginning and end of the show. He’s a goofy character romantically interested in Eska despite her being an awful match for him.
- Eska and Desna. Two really fascinating characters that were able to show us what truly in-sync benders can do. The idea of bending twins was spectacular and something interesting to be thrown into the show lore-wise, branching into a comparison of similarities between real world twins and twins in the Avatar universe. Until their characters didn’t develop in any realistic way. Eska, a powerful and disinterested elitist becomes completely obsessed over Bolin for no logical reason. In and of itself, that’s a small gripe. They’re teens. They do stupid stuff because of hormones. But Bolin is in love with her despite her attempts to kill them and her clear possessiveness? The twins were obsessed with the idea that their father knew best. They were dependent and functionally lost without the heavy hand of their father. Until he died. At which point, they inherently grasped that he was an awful person who didn’t deserve respect. In the span of a single episode, they went from being willing to kill for him to not caring that he died.
- The eternal problem with Korra. Everything is handed to her on a silver platter. She never works for anything. Does anyone else remember Aang struggling throughout all three seasons to try to find a way to save everyone without killing anyone? Or how he spent a season and a half struggling to avoid using his Avatar state for fear of causing irreparable damage? Where did that kind of development go? Korra gets handed everything. She loses her memory? Free vision quest to meet the first Avatar. Her frustrated mood is ruining the spirit world? Instantly figures out how to have a happy and calm mind. Raava died? Here, have Raava back. Lose her bending? Magically get her bending back and also master the Avatar state at the same time. Can’t brute-force her way into learning Airbending? Brute-forces her way into learning Airbending anyway. There is no concept of consequences for Korra. Everything works out fine every single time.
- Unulaq being completely one-dimensional. It was really cool that his vision was a world in which spirits and humans lived together. It was really cool that he wanted to be the other Avatar. That was a sweet angle. Too bad we didn’t hear about it until it was already happening- no hints that it was his desire at all. Too bad the last episode changed “Other” into “Dark” and his mission was really just to bring on 10,000 years of darkness (read: evil because the writers lack depth). Unulaq was power hungry. So we have two basic villain types in all of Avatar:
- Insane. Azula. Verrick. These are the most interesting villains by far. Both are calculating, individualistic, and lack empathy, but they’re not out to watch the world burn exactly. They’re just out to see the world more livable for themselves.
- Power hungry. Ozai, Sozen, leader of the Dai Li, Tarrlok, Amon, Yakone, General Zhao.
- The noteworthy exceptions to this case are Zuko and Iroh, two of the best characters in the first series for it, and Mai/Ty Lee. Ty Lee probably had the most unexpected and interesting change of heart, creating an incredibly powerful moment in the first series, and by extension, and even crazier Azula. The only four characters that had growth as villains were all deep and interesting additions to the cast.
- Jinora. Jinora was one of my favorite characters. Underestimated despite her natural connection to the spirit world. Then, she ultimately doesn't do anything! How exactly does her entering the spirit world magically make Korra able to do it? The two weren't physically or spiritually connected insofar as the show was willing to describe. Does anyone else remember Aang struggling to get into the spirit world? (Side note: Tenzin's growth as a result of this is probably my favorite part of the season) Jinora, upon leading her into the spirit world, proceeds to get captured after doing approximately 0 things worth noting. Her triumphant return at the end of the season is startlingly nonsensical. How does she revive Raava? Where did she get her? Why could only she do it? Do you remember how the original series explained a very similar phenomenon? Yue had to give up her life to revive the spirit, and it was only possible because the spirit had saved her life at birth. So what made Jinora special? What made her able to revive Raava?
- Holyshit themes! They tried so hard to push two themes that they ended up taking a complete crap on.
- Dark and Light are not the same thing as Good and Evil. They avoided so ardently using the word "evil" because that's not what Vaatu is. That's not what Yin and Yang is about (the very metaphor behind Raava and Vaatu). But despite their verbal inclinations away from the notion that "Dark" is not quite the same as "Evil," they managed to make the Dark characters completely indistinguishable from Evil characters. Furthermore, despite trying to center the Avatar as a balancing point, their direction for the other Avatar was complete destruction and power. This is, perhaps, a nitpicky detail, but I'd have been far more impressed to see the other Avatar's focus be on achieving balance in another way. Just a different philosophy of balance, because that's the heart of Yin and Yang. The very act of not referring to Korra as the "Light Avatar," but choosing to refer to Unulaq as the "Dark Avatar" meant that they deliberately defined his character as the embodiment of destruction rather simply a counter-balance to Korra's place in the world.
- Light and Dark cannot exist without one another. This was something that was pretty heavily pushed. And rightly so, it's what Yin and Yang is all about. The two are intrinsically connected, inseparable, and despite their apparent differences, they're really the same thing. They introduced something unique into the mix by forcibly separating Yin from Yang. Raava and Vaatu were separated by Wan. However, instead of delving into the philosophical ramifications of the separation of Yin from Yang, they decided that it wouldn't really change the way the world functions. Furthermore, they decided that, despite defining Light and Dark as impossible to exist without one another, Vaatu goes ahead and kills Raava. And she's dead. Game over. Fun story. Except for not making any sense in the world that they themselves built up. Then, of course, Raava comes back to life! Also in a fashion that is totally inexplicable. Except that for some reason, Raava no longer has any connection to the past Avatars. This? This all would've been bad enough. But then, they decided that Korra should be able to disintegrate Vaatu. Once again despite the explicit necessity for Darkness to exist by virtue of Light existing. They just throw that theme out the window and decide that Vaatu is dead now.
- Asami being part of the wallpaper for the entire season upset me. She's a strong character with a complicated background, and has the potential as a non-bender to have a lot of development. Nope. She loves Mako. And that's her only role. To be conned and to be in love.
- Ohmigod why did Korra turn into Dr. Manhattan?! How.... What.... NO! This makes absolutely no sense. It's a worse deus ex than the Lion Turtle. Where does that power come from? Why didn't they mention it before? Why not deliberately use it before? Why does the human spirit functionally have more power than the spirit of darkness? What's the point of being fused with Raava at all if she can just become a Megazord whenever she wants? Seems like that would be a far more efficient means of problem solving. Furthermore, why did this process wind up allowing her to travel on the same Rainbow Road that Aang took to master the Avatar state? The two are completely different. One is energy bending, the other is a connection with your past lives via a spirit that lives inside you!
- Eternity Tree. Way to bring up something so important that it can teach you energy bending in the last two episodes and never explain why it wasn't important or considered beforehand. Wouldn't Vaatu, a spirit of incredibly power, have been able to bend energy? Or is that only something humans can do? Which brings us to our next point...
- Why Korra? Korra no longer had any connection to Raava. Therefore, she was nothing but an ordinary water bender. So why was she so special that she could turn into Dr. Manhattan? Why didn't Jinora do it? She was more in touch with her spiritual side. Better yet, why didn't everyone do it if it was that easy. Double better yet, why is this only a thing that was discovered now? And what does that mean as regards to everyone else now that the portals are open? Can't anyone who wants just go become Dr. Manhattan by virtue of being human and meditating?
- What the everloving fuck makes Korra think that she has the authority to decide that the spirit world and the human world should be connected without consulting anyone?! Let alone a logistics nightmare, there are a million difficult and complicated implications for such an act. Tenzin would have been aware of this. Even if he hadn't been aware of it, he would've known that it's not Korra's place to make a decision like that on her own.
In all, not only did the show avoid making the interesting philosophical connections that were begging to be addressed (The same issue I had with season 1 of Korra), but they also took all of their own worldbuilding, and passed it through a blender. I was completely okay with the direction they were going up until the very last episode. Everything before that was nitpicky and I was willing to accept for the quantity of episodes available. But not after the finale. Not after they ruined every possible lesson they could've been trying to teach.
(Not quite accurate. They taught one lesson in the entire show. Forge your own future. You are not defined by your past.)
In its own right, the show would be acceptable, and even pretty good. But following up from the original ATLA, it gets a 'D'. The loving craftsmanship of the entire first series was just completely absent in Korra.
Monday, November 25, 2013
A Docked Ship
I was talking with a friend the other day when a quote came up; a quote on a fortune cookie, actually. The saying has some general variation in terminology, but its effect is unmistakeable.
"A ship in port is safe. But this is not what the ship was built for."
I've been thinking about this quote a lot. It seems to have struck a chord with the current upheaval I'm going through in my life.
The world was not designed to be safe, comfortable, or easy. The absence of these traits shouldn't function as a deterrent for experiencing life. If life is wasted worrying about the potential negative consequences of any given choice, you've already doomed yourself to stress, anxiety, and indecision.
Not only are you not going anywhere, but you're actively sabotaging your life as is.
This is particularly at odds with some initial thoughts about humanity and/or society. Namely, the American dream, which consists of a stable career, stable relationships, and owning of a home. The American dream is an attempt to make stable and comforting that which is inherently not so. I can't reasonably place a value judgment on this decision. After all, stability does afford us some happiness and stress-avoidance, even if it's not technically natural, per se.
Likewise, humanity actively seeks stability since it's environmentally ideal for raising children. Safety and comfort is a virtual necessity for squishy children. Stability also guarantees a longer life for the parents.
With that in mind, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that our metaphorical ship is no more meant for stormy waters as it is meant for the harbor. The ship, rather, is meant for the experience along the way. The ship is intended to provide function and form, while maintaining some level of safety. It is, after all, better to be in a boat than it is to be adrift on a plank of wood.
As such, the ship gives us some direction, some safety, and some utility. We have some semblance of control in an otherwise untamed world of waves and waters. It is perhaps then best if the captain knows how to navigate the ship in order to avoid troubled waters, while still maintaining course and purpose. Thus, there is intent without reckless abandon. Comfort without complacency. Stability without boredom.
Given the most skilled captain, one could even analyze and calculate the potential danger of a storm before actually being in it, giving the ability to pick and choose adventures that promise to be exciting without being unnecessarily dangerous.
Of course, this is all following a pretty strict analogy that doesn't really have any bearing on the world by necessity. So I'm dancing around a point instead of actually making it. There's a reason for that though- I'm interested in letting you, my dear reader, come to your own conclusion on how to approach the sea of life, before giving my own position.
Maintaining my unhealthy love of Aristotle, I favor the golden mean. The virtuous middle between any two extremes- in this case complacency and recklessness. Life is meant to be lived. Experiences are meant to be had. Sadness, love, anger, frustration, joy, elation, jealousy, pride, comfort, solace, exhaustion, fear. These are all natural things to experience. These are emotions that, when experienced, inform our perspective of the world. The more we experience, the more we can hope to understand the world in which we function. To that end, there is some need to stretch the boundaries and experience beyond our comfort zone.
But, for the same reason, there is some need to sit comfortably in the middle of our bubble and remind ourselves of our position and our surroundings.
Travel, but do so cautiously. Experience with intent to learn. Take every experience as a lesson for the future, and don't avoid things just because they're completely terrifying. Some of our fears are totally irrational. Like a fear of trying new foods.
*Cough self-deprecating humor Cough*
Analyzing which of our fears are justified and which are not is the difficult part. I'm still sorting through that, so I'll let you know how it goes when I get to the other side of this chasm.
-
Waddles
"A ship in port is safe. But this is not what the ship was built for."
I've been thinking about this quote a lot. It seems to have struck a chord with the current upheaval I'm going through in my life.
The world was not designed to be safe, comfortable, or easy. The absence of these traits shouldn't function as a deterrent for experiencing life. If life is wasted worrying about the potential negative consequences of any given choice, you've already doomed yourself to stress, anxiety, and indecision.
Not only are you not going anywhere, but you're actively sabotaging your life as is.
This is particularly at odds with some initial thoughts about humanity and/or society. Namely, the American dream, which consists of a stable career, stable relationships, and owning of a home. The American dream is an attempt to make stable and comforting that which is inherently not so. I can't reasonably place a value judgment on this decision. After all, stability does afford us some happiness and stress-avoidance, even if it's not technically natural, per se.
Likewise, humanity actively seeks stability since it's environmentally ideal for raising children. Safety and comfort is a virtual necessity for squishy children. Stability also guarantees a longer life for the parents.
With that in mind, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that our metaphorical ship is no more meant for stormy waters as it is meant for the harbor. The ship, rather, is meant for the experience along the way. The ship is intended to provide function and form, while maintaining some level of safety. It is, after all, better to be in a boat than it is to be adrift on a plank of wood.
As such, the ship gives us some direction, some safety, and some utility. We have some semblance of control in an otherwise untamed world of waves and waters. It is perhaps then best if the captain knows how to navigate the ship in order to avoid troubled waters, while still maintaining course and purpose. Thus, there is intent without reckless abandon. Comfort without complacency. Stability without boredom.
Given the most skilled captain, one could even analyze and calculate the potential danger of a storm before actually being in it, giving the ability to pick and choose adventures that promise to be exciting without being unnecessarily dangerous.
Of course, this is all following a pretty strict analogy that doesn't really have any bearing on the world by necessity. So I'm dancing around a point instead of actually making it. There's a reason for that though- I'm interested in letting you, my dear reader, come to your own conclusion on how to approach the sea of life, before giving my own position.
Maintaining my unhealthy love of Aristotle, I favor the golden mean. The virtuous middle between any two extremes- in this case complacency and recklessness. Life is meant to be lived. Experiences are meant to be had. Sadness, love, anger, frustration, joy, elation, jealousy, pride, comfort, solace, exhaustion, fear. These are all natural things to experience. These are emotions that, when experienced, inform our perspective of the world. The more we experience, the more we can hope to understand the world in which we function. To that end, there is some need to stretch the boundaries and experience beyond our comfort zone.
But, for the same reason, there is some need to sit comfortably in the middle of our bubble and remind ourselves of our position and our surroundings.
Travel, but do so cautiously. Experience with intent to learn. Take every experience as a lesson for the future, and don't avoid things just because they're completely terrifying. Some of our fears are totally irrational. Like a fear of trying new foods.
*Cough self-deprecating humor Cough*
Analyzing which of our fears are justified and which are not is the difficult part. I'm still sorting through that, so I'll let you know how it goes when I get to the other side of this chasm.
-
Waddles
Happiness Conflicts
My fingers are a little mangled, so I'm gonna' try to keep this one relatively shortish.
Persisting in the new tradition of talking about topics from this wonderful book I'm reading, I'm interested in addressing the issue of conflicts to happiness.
Why is global depression increasing? What can we do to reverse the flow of emotions from negative to positive? What are the causes for our individualized feelings of unhappiness?
There's no easy answer to the vague question of "why are people getting less happy." Popular ideas range from increasing population, decreased opportunities, increased expectations, decreased authenticity, to the media's focus on negativity, and even the perception that people are unhappy is causing us more stress! There are a lot of hypotheses and not a lot of answers. So what's the point of this blog post? Well, the expanding realm of positive psychology has been focused on defining, examining, quantifying, and providing happiness for people in the last two decades. To that end, a lot of research has been done on what techniques objectively improve the frequency with which our brains' reward centers activate.
So, what are the techniques and why aren't they working?
That's the catch- they do work. People are just afraid to employ them. We're often recommended a number of methods that are intended to increase feelings of positivity in our life, but we're prone to dismissing them without giving them a chance. Why?
Skepticism. Cynicism. Remarks that the techniques feel "inauthentic," "corny," and lack genuineness. This shouldn't really hit as a surprise. Humans defend the status quo and we're terribly uncomfortable with change most of the time. Telling someone to change how they approach and operate within the context of life is going to make them wary before it does anything else. "This is all we know- it's comfortable and it's working fine...ish."
Ultimately, my belief is that we're so engendered to believe that failure is an epidemic to be wiped out, that we've lost the ability to take chances for fear that it will simply end in a perceived "loss." If we fail, there's something innately wrong with us. As a result, it's better to be complacent and mediocre than risk failure even if the rewards would be great.
What are these techniques? Maybe they're just unreasonably difficult? I at least don't think they are, and yet I still have some trouble with them.
The most simple and effective technique is simply the expression of gratitude and kind thoughts. Compliment a stranger, hold a door open, thank someone, smile politely, but sincerely. This is widely shown to generate positive feelings of optimism and confidence throughout the day. The science behind it is evolutionarily logical too- when we see someone else smile, we are charged and feel positively ourselves. The idea, from a guess, would be that humans thrive under conditions of happiness and societal well-being. When we observe this state in others, we feel it in ourselves because no intervention is required in order to preserve the human species. If we're sad, disinterested, or rude, however, then there's a problem. We feel stress and uneasiness- not necessarily because our own lives are lacking something, but solely because we perceive those around us as suffering and unhappy.
Two other techniques are less socially defined, but still show a remarkably positive effect on our minds;
1. Think about death. This is counter-intuitive since death is inherently depressing as far as natural phenomena goes. However, if we briefly think on death in a non-personal/non-emotional context, it provides a lasting sense of peace. "Post-traumatic bliss." The idea that our individual struggles are nothing in the grand scheme of things. The things that make us sad today may be gone tomorrow, replaced by something new for worse or better. And that change will continue ad infinitum.
2. Dance. As stupid and obvious as it sounds, synchronizing our bodies with music we enjoy stimulates our brains in a way that effectively increases and stabilizes our mood.
What's more is that doing any of these activities in a social setting releases inhibitions and inspires a comfortable sense of connection with people around you. Having a philosophical discussion about death with others can actually make you feel more at peace with yourself. Dancing with friends makes you feel great, as I'm sure you're aware. Exchanging smiles, laughs, and compliments with friends and/or strangers does too.
Why is it so easy to lose sight of something so simple then?
Cultured expectations, among other things. We're driven towards productivity without a goal. Unquantified and vague productivity. We have to do it without failing, and we have to do it alone. Cubicles, standardized testing, and even one of the foremost words in the American mindset- Independent. (For more of a rant on this, see Friday's post on Asking for Help)
We stop playing. We stop having fun. We stop enjoying. We stop gaming. That's what "happens" when you become an adult. Basically, you stop "being a child." Unfortunately, one of the by-products of this is having to redefine "happiness," since it's so simple for children. Happiness is social bonding, physical activity, and play. To distance ourselves from that, we've had to culturally create a new definition for happiness.
Drinking. Having money. Having power. Having land. A family (whether it functions well or not). Religion (whether it's truly adhered to or not). Sex.
(Side note: It's not even good sex! Sex is only acceptable if it's non-communicative, man on top, meaningless, passionless sex)
We've taken "happiness" and ripped the soul from the concept in order to make a more productive and bland set of workers.
What do we do?
Stop being skeptical. It doesn't matter of it's corny. It doesn't matter if it seems inauthentic. The phrase "fake it 'til you make it," while inelegant, accurately describes how the human mind functions; if you convince yourself that you're happy and confident person, you'll act happier and more confidently, inspiring similar emotions in those around you (per the earlier notes on evolutionary psychology). When they're happier, you're genuinely more optimistic, even if you caused it by faking happiness in the first place.
It sounds stupid. Primarily because it is. It's a method of tricking the mind into behaving how you want it to behave rather than how society is trying to make it behave. And if the only thing standing in your way is your own skepticism, your own cynicism, your own fear, then you're so close to happiness. The only thing preventing it is something entirely within your control; You.
So dance, compliment strangers, smile, and be polite.
It'll make you happier. And the only thing preventing it is you.
-
Waddles
Persisting in the new tradition of talking about topics from this wonderful book I'm reading, I'm interested in addressing the issue of conflicts to happiness.
Why is global depression increasing? What can we do to reverse the flow of emotions from negative to positive? What are the causes for our individualized feelings of unhappiness?
There's no easy answer to the vague question of "why are people getting less happy." Popular ideas range from increasing population, decreased opportunities, increased expectations, decreased authenticity, to the media's focus on negativity, and even the perception that people are unhappy is causing us more stress! There are a lot of hypotheses and not a lot of answers. So what's the point of this blog post? Well, the expanding realm of positive psychology has been focused on defining, examining, quantifying, and providing happiness for people in the last two decades. To that end, a lot of research has been done on what techniques objectively improve the frequency with which our brains' reward centers activate.
So, what are the techniques and why aren't they working?
That's the catch- they do work. People are just afraid to employ them. We're often recommended a number of methods that are intended to increase feelings of positivity in our life, but we're prone to dismissing them without giving them a chance. Why?
Skepticism. Cynicism. Remarks that the techniques feel "inauthentic," "corny," and lack genuineness. This shouldn't really hit as a surprise. Humans defend the status quo and we're terribly uncomfortable with change most of the time. Telling someone to change how they approach and operate within the context of life is going to make them wary before it does anything else. "This is all we know- it's comfortable and it's working fine...ish."
Ultimately, my belief is that we're so engendered to believe that failure is an epidemic to be wiped out, that we've lost the ability to take chances for fear that it will simply end in a perceived "loss." If we fail, there's something innately wrong with us. As a result, it's better to be complacent and mediocre than risk failure even if the rewards would be great.
What are these techniques? Maybe they're just unreasonably difficult? I at least don't think they are, and yet I still have some trouble with them.
The most simple and effective technique is simply the expression of gratitude and kind thoughts. Compliment a stranger, hold a door open, thank someone, smile politely, but sincerely. This is widely shown to generate positive feelings of optimism and confidence throughout the day. The science behind it is evolutionarily logical too- when we see someone else smile, we are charged and feel positively ourselves. The idea, from a guess, would be that humans thrive under conditions of happiness and societal well-being. When we observe this state in others, we feel it in ourselves because no intervention is required in order to preserve the human species. If we're sad, disinterested, or rude, however, then there's a problem. We feel stress and uneasiness- not necessarily because our own lives are lacking something, but solely because we perceive those around us as suffering and unhappy.
Two other techniques are less socially defined, but still show a remarkably positive effect on our minds;
1. Think about death. This is counter-intuitive since death is inherently depressing as far as natural phenomena goes. However, if we briefly think on death in a non-personal/non-emotional context, it provides a lasting sense of peace. "Post-traumatic bliss." The idea that our individual struggles are nothing in the grand scheme of things. The things that make us sad today may be gone tomorrow, replaced by something new for worse or better. And that change will continue ad infinitum.
2. Dance. As stupid and obvious as it sounds, synchronizing our bodies with music we enjoy stimulates our brains in a way that effectively increases and stabilizes our mood.
What's more is that doing any of these activities in a social setting releases inhibitions and inspires a comfortable sense of connection with people around you. Having a philosophical discussion about death with others can actually make you feel more at peace with yourself. Dancing with friends makes you feel great, as I'm sure you're aware. Exchanging smiles, laughs, and compliments with friends and/or strangers does too.
Why is it so easy to lose sight of something so simple then?
Cultured expectations, among other things. We're driven towards productivity without a goal. Unquantified and vague productivity. We have to do it without failing, and we have to do it alone. Cubicles, standardized testing, and even one of the foremost words in the American mindset- Independent. (For more of a rant on this, see Friday's post on Asking for Help)
We stop playing. We stop having fun. We stop enjoying. We stop gaming. That's what "happens" when you become an adult. Basically, you stop "being a child." Unfortunately, one of the by-products of this is having to redefine "happiness," since it's so simple for children. Happiness is social bonding, physical activity, and play. To distance ourselves from that, we've had to culturally create a new definition for happiness.
Drinking. Having money. Having power. Having land. A family (whether it functions well or not). Religion (whether it's truly adhered to or not). Sex.
(Side note: It's not even good sex! Sex is only acceptable if it's non-communicative, man on top, meaningless, passionless sex)
We've taken "happiness" and ripped the soul from the concept in order to make a more productive and bland set of workers.
What do we do?
Stop being skeptical. It doesn't matter of it's corny. It doesn't matter if it seems inauthentic. The phrase "fake it 'til you make it," while inelegant, accurately describes how the human mind functions; if you convince yourself that you're happy and confident person, you'll act happier and more confidently, inspiring similar emotions in those around you (per the earlier notes on evolutionary psychology). When they're happier, you're genuinely more optimistic, even if you caused it by faking happiness in the first place.
It sounds stupid. Primarily because it is. It's a method of tricking the mind into behaving how you want it to behave rather than how society is trying to make it behave. And if the only thing standing in your way is your own skepticism, your own cynicism, your own fear, then you're so close to happiness. The only thing preventing it is something entirely within your control; You.
So dance, compliment strangers, smile, and be polite.
It'll make you happier. And the only thing preventing it is you.
-
Waddles
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Asking For Help
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the intersection between two separate thoughts I've been presented with on a single topic- the idea of asking for help.
It's no secret that humans are collaborative creatures. Even the most introverted of us need outside help sometimes. This is normal, natural, and a product of being human. Still, Western society has largely stigmatized the concept of collectivism in favor of intense individuality. If you're not totally independent, there's a problem.
To be clear, being completely dependent is a problem, and I'm not advocating for a drastic swing in either direction (I may have mentioned that I admire Aristotle?). If you're totally dependent, you're incapable of handing problems on your own if no one else is available to help you. Further, you don't strengthen your own resolve when you rely solely on the power of others.
However, by the same token, if you're totally independent, you've lost a great and powerful tool in a support structure. You have no one to turn to, no one who knows what's going on in your life, and you're not vulnerable to anyone. Being vulnerable is, likewise, seen as a weakness in America. And it's true that the exact value of allowing yourself to be selectively vulnerable is somewhat difficult to determine.
http://www.natashafondren.com/writing/musings/vulnerability-happiness/
Ultimately, being vulnerable opens us up for deeper connection and trust. This author doesn't quite go far enough in describing the pain that vulnerability can cause, however. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable to another human being, they can hurt you. Deeply. This is because the deeper your connection and vulnerability, the happier you are. The more content you are, the harder you fall if the rug is pulled from underneath you.
So what does that mean exactly? I'm dancing around the point I'm interested in pursuing here. I've stated really briefly a good reason to be vulnerable and a good reason not to be vulnerable. If you can brace yourself on the rug, maybe you won't fall if it's pulled out from under you. Alternatively, you can stand tall and happy at the risk of injury. Is one of these necessarily better than the other one? They both seem like adequate philosophical approaches to life, don't they?
I'd like to examine an analogical situation to better describe my thought process on the matter.
The Prisoner's Dilemma. One of the most fundamental ideas of game theory, posits a situation in which two criminals are caught. They are both given the opportunity to rat out the other in exchange for a lighter sentence. However, if both rat the other out, neither receives a reduced sentence. There's only a benefit if just one of them squeals.
here is a picture depicting the standard Prisoner's Dilemma.
If both stay quiet, they both have a minimal sentence by comparison. If only one squeals, the sentence for the other is 10 years, but the snitch gets to go home. If they both squeal, they both get six years.
The idea behind the Prisoner's Dilemma is to give a mathematical basis for trusting someone else by the law of averages. Frankly, in our case, it's a shitty example, so I'm going to play around with some numbers.
Instead of "years in prison" as a unit (a little dour, don't you think?), let's try "Arbitrary Unit of Happiness" or AUH for short.
Instead of "Confess" and "Stay Quiet," our two options will be "Trusting/Vulnerable" and "Reserved."
For the purposes of this really simple thought experiment, being "reserved" is literal. You're holding something back, whether it's emotional, mental, or what have you. You are not completely open with the other person. Whereas the practice of being "Trusting/Vulnerable" is a total system of trust, meaning that there is no information you wouldn't willingly share with this person. (Thereby, making you a squishy pink blob of openness)
So, our 2x2 grid contains these possibilities:
1. A is Reserved. B is Reserved.
2. A is Trusting. B is Reserved.
3. A is Reserved. B is Trusting.
4. A is Trusting. B is Trusting.
Two people who are Reserved towards each other creates a very mild bond that is not particularly strong. It provides little happiness, but also has only a small risk of causing pain in the unfortunate event that something goes wrong. AUH for both parties in situation 1 would be 2. A and B experience 2 AUH towards each other.
In situation 2, A is much closer to B, but this is not a reciprocated Trust. As a result, A feels somewhat happier towards B, but is painfully aware of the Reservation, recognizing that their relationship isn't where A wants it to be. A experiences an AUH of 6, while B still only experiences an AUH of 2 or 3.
Situation 3 is the same as 2, but reversed such that B experiences the higher AUH than A.
In situation 4, however, both parties are Trusting, leading to a higher AUH. A and B feel an AUH of 10 towards each other, feeling that their relationship is completely in sync and fulfilling.
Of course, in the event that B betrays A, both their AUH would plummet to 0, resulting in a much larger injury than if they had both began as Reserved towards each other. Quantitatively, this would be an injury of approximately 10+ AUH (It might go into the negatives depending on how badly the Trust was breached).
Contrarily, if, in situation 1, B betrays A, their AUH would sink the two points back to 0 (possibly to the negatives depending on the breach of trust), resulting in a much less explosive landing. In any case, the higher you stand, the harder you fall if something goes wrong.
SO, what are we left with if we parse this complicated mathematical nonsense out? We're likely to see more emotional stability, but less emotional extremes as a result of being Reserved. Meaning, less overall happiness, with reduced possibility for extreme breach of trust feelings. As a result of being Trusting, we'll see more emotional extremes (a wider gap between the lows and the highs), which will feel more unstable, but will be fueled by more overall happiness.
I'm not about to suggest that anyone not be selective about who they trust. Everyone should be picky to that end, but I am going to suggest that it's better for our overall health, happiness, and productivity to have someone (or several people) that we have a mutual Trust bond with. If you're not experiencing emotions like happiness to their full potential, is life really being lived? There's a philosophical argument to be made for either side, but I think the science would suggest that people fare a lot better with happiness.
[Honestly, I got pretty side-tracked from where my original intent was headed...]
Wanting to have this connection and this Trust with the people you love isn't wrong. It's best to communicate with them openly to ensure both parties are on the same page as far as intent goes. But with that said, if we provide that level of Trust for others, and everyone works together to fuel the happiness machine, no one will be left wanting for someone to turn to in their time of need.
On that note, make yourself available for the people you care about. Make them know you're there, able to be reached if need be. And if you see someone struggling, reach out to them first. It sucks feeling like a burden, and it sucks to feel like you're begging others for help. Even if the person you're talking to is totally willing, it still feels like shameful behavior. Well, it's not. Cut it out. Right now. Make the preemptive strike if you see someone who might be in need.
We've all been there, and we'll all be there again.
Sure, we could become emotionless robots in order to prevent us from getting hurt, but where's the fun in that, right?
-
Waddles
(Seriously, this was a pretty awful stream-of-consciousness post. I'm kinda' all over the place here. tl;dr: Trust is good and it makes us happy even if culture doesn't want you to have any level of dependence. Culture is dumb and backwards. Trust the people you love. Let them in. Help them out. Reciprocate. All that jazz.)
It's no secret that humans are collaborative creatures. Even the most introverted of us need outside help sometimes. This is normal, natural, and a product of being human. Still, Western society has largely stigmatized the concept of collectivism in favor of intense individuality. If you're not totally independent, there's a problem.
To be clear, being completely dependent is a problem, and I'm not advocating for a drastic swing in either direction (I may have mentioned that I admire Aristotle?). If you're totally dependent, you're incapable of handing problems on your own if no one else is available to help you. Further, you don't strengthen your own resolve when you rely solely on the power of others.
However, by the same token, if you're totally independent, you've lost a great and powerful tool in a support structure. You have no one to turn to, no one who knows what's going on in your life, and you're not vulnerable to anyone. Being vulnerable is, likewise, seen as a weakness in America. And it's true that the exact value of allowing yourself to be selectively vulnerable is somewhat difficult to determine.
http://www.natashafondren.com/writing/musings/vulnerability-happiness/
Ultimately, being vulnerable opens us up for deeper connection and trust. This author doesn't quite go far enough in describing the pain that vulnerability can cause, however. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable to another human being, they can hurt you. Deeply. This is because the deeper your connection and vulnerability, the happier you are. The more content you are, the harder you fall if the rug is pulled from underneath you.
So what does that mean exactly? I'm dancing around the point I'm interested in pursuing here. I've stated really briefly a good reason to be vulnerable and a good reason not to be vulnerable. If you can brace yourself on the rug, maybe you won't fall if it's pulled out from under you. Alternatively, you can stand tall and happy at the risk of injury. Is one of these necessarily better than the other one? They both seem like adequate philosophical approaches to life, don't they?
I'd like to examine an analogical situation to better describe my thought process on the matter.
The Prisoner's Dilemma. One of the most fundamental ideas of game theory, posits a situation in which two criminals are caught. They are both given the opportunity to rat out the other in exchange for a lighter sentence. However, if both rat the other out, neither receives a reduced sentence. There's only a benefit if just one of them squeals.
here is a picture depicting the standard Prisoner's Dilemma.
If both stay quiet, they both have a minimal sentence by comparison. If only one squeals, the sentence for the other is 10 years, but the snitch gets to go home. If they both squeal, they both get six years.
The idea behind the Prisoner's Dilemma is to give a mathematical basis for trusting someone else by the law of averages. Frankly, in our case, it's a shitty example, so I'm going to play around with some numbers.
Instead of "years in prison" as a unit (a little dour, don't you think?), let's try "Arbitrary Unit of Happiness" or AUH for short.
Instead of "Confess" and "Stay Quiet," our two options will be "Trusting/Vulnerable" and "Reserved."
For the purposes of this really simple thought experiment, being "reserved" is literal. You're holding something back, whether it's emotional, mental, or what have you. You are not completely open with the other person. Whereas the practice of being "Trusting/Vulnerable" is a total system of trust, meaning that there is no information you wouldn't willingly share with this person. (Thereby, making you a squishy pink blob of openness)
So, our 2x2 grid contains these possibilities:
1. A is Reserved. B is Reserved.
2. A is Trusting. B is Reserved.
3. A is Reserved. B is Trusting.
4. A is Trusting. B is Trusting.
Two people who are Reserved towards each other creates a very mild bond that is not particularly strong. It provides little happiness, but also has only a small risk of causing pain in the unfortunate event that something goes wrong. AUH for both parties in situation 1 would be 2. A and B experience 2 AUH towards each other.
In situation 2, A is much closer to B, but this is not a reciprocated Trust. As a result, A feels somewhat happier towards B, but is painfully aware of the Reservation, recognizing that their relationship isn't where A wants it to be. A experiences an AUH of 6, while B still only experiences an AUH of 2 or 3.
Situation 3 is the same as 2, but reversed such that B experiences the higher AUH than A.
In situation 4, however, both parties are Trusting, leading to a higher AUH. A and B feel an AUH of 10 towards each other, feeling that their relationship is completely in sync and fulfilling.
Of course, in the event that B betrays A, both their AUH would plummet to 0, resulting in a much larger injury than if they had both began as Reserved towards each other. Quantitatively, this would be an injury of approximately 10+ AUH (It might go into the negatives depending on how badly the Trust was breached).
Contrarily, if, in situation 1, B betrays A, their AUH would sink the two points back to 0 (possibly to the negatives depending on the breach of trust), resulting in a much less explosive landing. In any case, the higher you stand, the harder you fall if something goes wrong.
SO, what are we left with if we parse this complicated mathematical nonsense out? We're likely to see more emotional stability, but less emotional extremes as a result of being Reserved. Meaning, less overall happiness, with reduced possibility for extreme breach of trust feelings. As a result of being Trusting, we'll see more emotional extremes (a wider gap between the lows and the highs), which will feel more unstable, but will be fueled by more overall happiness.
I'm not about to suggest that anyone not be selective about who they trust. Everyone should be picky to that end, but I am going to suggest that it's better for our overall health, happiness, and productivity to have someone (or several people) that we have a mutual Trust bond with. If you're not experiencing emotions like happiness to their full potential, is life really being lived? There's a philosophical argument to be made for either side, but I think the science would suggest that people fare a lot better with happiness.
[Honestly, I got pretty side-tracked from where my original intent was headed...]
Wanting to have this connection and this Trust with the people you love isn't wrong. It's best to communicate with them openly to ensure both parties are on the same page as far as intent goes. But with that said, if we provide that level of Trust for others, and everyone works together to fuel the happiness machine, no one will be left wanting for someone to turn to in their time of need.
On that note, make yourself available for the people you care about. Make them know you're there, able to be reached if need be. And if you see someone struggling, reach out to them first. It sucks feeling like a burden, and it sucks to feel like you're begging others for help. Even if the person you're talking to is totally willing, it still feels like shameful behavior. Well, it's not. Cut it out. Right now. Make the preemptive strike if you see someone who might be in need.
We've all been there, and we'll all be there again.
Sure, we could become emotionless robots in order to prevent us from getting hurt, but where's the fun in that, right?
-
Waddles
(Seriously, this was a pretty awful stream-of-consciousness post. I'm kinda' all over the place here. tl;dr: Trust is good and it makes us happy even if culture doesn't want you to have any level of dependence. Culture is dumb and backwards. Trust the people you love. Let them in. Help them out. Reciprocate. All that jazz.)
Monday, November 18, 2013
Communication (And How Not to be Terrible at it)
Getting back into the swing of blog writing, we'll dabble in a topic near and dear to my heart: one that was a primary focus for the cessation of my last relationship and the beginning of what I consider to be the next chapter of my life.
Communication.
People suck at it. Big time. Myself included.
Communication isn't a simple art, and it's often at direct odds with what we are emotionally inclined to think and do. To that end, effective communication is not often our first temptation when faced with an uncomfortable situation or idea. Instead, being a stubborn jackass takes that role.
There's an enormous amount of subtle nuance that goes into language from an objective standpoint. But beyond that, from a subjective standpoint, each person interprets language a little differently. This makes 100% effective communication impossible by default without the power to read minds. However, there are a number of tricks and steps that we can take to ensure that we're communicating as effectively as possible in the time we have. Traditionally, the steps I'm going to give you are to be taken from a relationship standpoint, but I find they're equally effective with any instance of communication.
https://helptherapist.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=17&id=75&view=article&fontstyle=f-larger
(If you want to follow along or skip my interpretation of these ideas, you can go straight to this source for a cursory look at it) [Alternatively, if you want to skip straight to the actual source, look up Dr. John Gottman and his books, "Why Marriages Succeed or Fail" and "The Relationship Cure."]
I recommend, regardless of your position, that you actively consider and analyze the ways in which you interact with the people around you in order to determine if any of these ideas apply directly or indirectly to your life.
First, and most principally, humans are bad at actively thinking about the status quo, whatever it is. In the context of relationships, the status quo consists of the things we like about our relationships and friendships- the things that make us stay there. We take these characteristics as "default" and gloss over them. However, when something bad happens, it disrupts those thoughts and we home in on it. As a result, it's far easier to identify and pinpoint things that are "wrong" with relationships than things that are "right." This is a method of cognitive bias we have that is ultimately damaging to ourselves, our loved ones, and our relationships.
The simple fix? Start vocalizing your appreciation for things. When someone does something you like, even if it's something they do every single day, stop them to make sure they know that it makes you happy. The more you catch yourself deliberately telling people about what you appreciate, the better your relationship is going to feel, since you're going to be more actively focused on the good things.
As an aside, this removes the ambiguity of non-feedback as a response to the things we do. We will either know immediately if what we're doing is making someone happy or not. The result? You trust what your partner tells you that much more now.
To put this in the context of a relationship, Gottman has a 5:1 ratio rule. Express five positive feelings for every one negative feeling regarding your partner. The lower the ratio, the more destructive the relationship actually is to you (both).
This works for friends too. Tell people what you're thinking. They deserve to know and it facilitates a better and mutual understanding between you. Keeping it bottled up isn't gonna' help.
Beyond that, there are four basic "sins" of communication that invariably cause more problems than they solve:
1. Criticism
This isn't academic criticism that we're talking about, but rather, it's offensive criticism- criticism intended to put people on the defensive and make them feel as though they're a problem. This includes personality generalizations. An easy hint is that if you catch yourself saying "you always..." or "you never...", then you're probably criticizing someone in a way that is unproductive.
Displaying honest displeasure with something your partner does is necessary for both parties and the relationship itself. However, you have to keep in mind that this kind of communication doesn't rely on the criticism of "who" the other person is, but rather "actions" that they have performed. If you criticize a trait that someone has, then you're criticizing a fundamental aspect of who they are. This is divisive and makes any problem seem a thousand times worse than it might actually be. This is because you've subtly implied that the problem is inherent and not something that can be changed.
To that end, statements of universal being should be avoided as well. "You are..." The less definitive your language becomes, the easier it is to understand where you're coming from.
"You are an angry person." - This is a hurtful and definitive statement about someone that cannot be remedied because it's definitional.
"You seem angry today." - This is a lot more tentative and doesn't say anything about "who" the person is, but rather, how they're acting. What's better is that it's approached from the perspective that the speaker might be wrong. "Seem." It indicates perceptual thought rather than a factual certitude.
"I'm getting the impression that something has been frustrating you lately. Do you want to talk about it?" - This is even more directly admitting that it's simply your perception, it's less accusatory, it uses less demeaning language (frustration is acceptable. Anger typically isn't), and it's on a more vague timeline. What's more, it invites the listener to partake in active steps to solve the problem rather than leaving it open-ended.
2. Contempt
This one is basically a nastier version of criticism. It looks directly at a person, takes a perceived permanent trait, and establishes a clear distaste for it. This is typical bully behavior that we're all capable of given the appropriate circumstances.
It often takes the form in demeaning insults, threats, condescension, and the intent to either hurt or subdue. Given that contempt is usually just a more extreme criticism, it shouldn't warrant a whole lot more in the way of description. Basically, if you solve the problem of personal criticism, you shouldn't notice any contempt cropping up either.
3. Defensiveness
Defensiveness is, like criticism, something so common and easy to do, we don't typically catch ourselves in the midst of this transgression. This takes the form of shifting responsibility from yourself to another target.
"It wasn't my fault. *insert excuse*"
"It didn't happen."
"I wouldn't have done it if you didn't ____"
"Yes, but..."
This is simply the act of avoiding the humility we should be pursuing when we've done something to upset someone else.
This particular issue of communication treads into some very tricky territory. Because humans, being creatures of reasoning (sometimes) want to explain and add footnotes to everything. We want the blame to be shifted either to another person or a faceless idea. We want it not to be on us.
This isn't something we do necessarily because we want to weasel out of trouble we deserve to be in. Lots of times, we genuinely don't think we did anything wrong by our own moral standards. But here's the funny thing about relationships:
Your standards don't matter when it comes to breaking other peoples' standards.
If a really good friend is uncomfortable with the word "cunt," but you're not, should you still be "allowed" to use it? Well, sure. No one's going to stop you. But your friend will be made uncomfortable by something you can avoid doing without much difficulty.
"Yes, but swearing doesn't hurt anyone."
"Yes, but it's just a word."
"Well, you use the word 'fuck.' Why is this so different?"
While these positions may be valid in terms of an actual argumentative debate on the topic of language and its function in society, you're displacing the simple fact that you made someone else uncomfortable. Someone that you care about. You can try to change their opinion, but there's a time and place for that discussion. That time and place is not typically right after stomping on their comfort zone.
So, what should you do? Well, there's nothing wrong with explaining your position, but in order to avoid looking like a weasel, just apologize. Sincerely, unabashedly, and without a "but..." afterwords.
Even if you didn't break any of your own standards, you did break someone else's and made them uncomfortable. For that, you can be apologetic. For making them uncomfortable, you can be apologetic. This doesn't necessarily mean that you've admitted some sort of innate moral "wrong" with what you've done, just that what you've done had the unintended consequence of hurting someone important.
"I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. It was not my intention. The reason I did it was _______, but I understand that it made you uncomfortable regardless."
If at all possible, try ending it with an assurance that you'll try to prevent that kind of behavior in the future (at least around the person who's uncomfortable)
4. Stonewalling
Here's the biggy. This one's real easy to do and incredibly effective for making a problem "go away." I put that in quotations because it really just sweeps the problem under a rug, rather than making it go away entirely.
Stonewalling is the act of shutting down a conversation. It's when you become silent, unresponsive, unemotive, non-communicative, and withdrawn. Disapproval, coldness, distance, unhappiness, and frustration are all associated feelings.
To be perfectly clear, sometimes taking yourself out of a conversation that's going nowhere is both necessary and healthy, but only if you return to the conversation later, and only if there's an understanding between both parties in the discussion that it's a temporary measure taken to cool down.
Subtle emotional manipulation falls under this category, and it's a pattern of action that's far easier to slip into than you might guess. That little hint of disapproval, but not actually talking about it forces the person you're talking to to decide on their own terms if they want to betray you or betray themselves. It's a guilt-inducing maneuver that a lot of people do unconsciously- sometimes not intending to cause their partner any stress, but the result is the same either way.
Passive aggressive behavior falls carefully between criticism and stonewalling.
By no means are these end-all-be-all rules, but they're definitely something you should keep your eyes out for. Try to communicate openly, honestly, politely, and humbly whenever possible.
I am guilty of stonewalling with more frequency than any of the others. I'm trying to end ties with this kind of behavior.
What's your communication sin?
Communication.
People suck at it. Big time. Myself included.
Communication isn't a simple art, and it's often at direct odds with what we are emotionally inclined to think and do. To that end, effective communication is not often our first temptation when faced with an uncomfortable situation or idea. Instead, being a stubborn jackass takes that role.
There's an enormous amount of subtle nuance that goes into language from an objective standpoint. But beyond that, from a subjective standpoint, each person interprets language a little differently. This makes 100% effective communication impossible by default without the power to read minds. However, there are a number of tricks and steps that we can take to ensure that we're communicating as effectively as possible in the time we have. Traditionally, the steps I'm going to give you are to be taken from a relationship standpoint, but I find they're equally effective with any instance of communication.
https://helptherapist.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=17&id=75&view=article&fontstyle=f-larger
(If you want to follow along or skip my interpretation of these ideas, you can go straight to this source for a cursory look at it) [Alternatively, if you want to skip straight to the actual source, look up Dr. John Gottman and his books, "Why Marriages Succeed or Fail" and "The Relationship Cure."]
I recommend, regardless of your position, that you actively consider and analyze the ways in which you interact with the people around you in order to determine if any of these ideas apply directly or indirectly to your life.
First, and most principally, humans are bad at actively thinking about the status quo, whatever it is. In the context of relationships, the status quo consists of the things we like about our relationships and friendships- the things that make us stay there. We take these characteristics as "default" and gloss over them. However, when something bad happens, it disrupts those thoughts and we home in on it. As a result, it's far easier to identify and pinpoint things that are "wrong" with relationships than things that are "right." This is a method of cognitive bias we have that is ultimately damaging to ourselves, our loved ones, and our relationships.
The simple fix? Start vocalizing your appreciation for things. When someone does something you like, even if it's something they do every single day, stop them to make sure they know that it makes you happy. The more you catch yourself deliberately telling people about what you appreciate, the better your relationship is going to feel, since you're going to be more actively focused on the good things.
As an aside, this removes the ambiguity of non-feedback as a response to the things we do. We will either know immediately if what we're doing is making someone happy or not. The result? You trust what your partner tells you that much more now.
To put this in the context of a relationship, Gottman has a 5:1 ratio rule. Express five positive feelings for every one negative feeling regarding your partner. The lower the ratio, the more destructive the relationship actually is to you (both).
This works for friends too. Tell people what you're thinking. They deserve to know and it facilitates a better and mutual understanding between you. Keeping it bottled up isn't gonna' help.
Beyond that, there are four basic "sins" of communication that invariably cause more problems than they solve:
1. Criticism
This isn't academic criticism that we're talking about, but rather, it's offensive criticism- criticism intended to put people on the defensive and make them feel as though they're a problem. This includes personality generalizations. An easy hint is that if you catch yourself saying "you always..." or "you never...", then you're probably criticizing someone in a way that is unproductive.
Displaying honest displeasure with something your partner does is necessary for both parties and the relationship itself. However, you have to keep in mind that this kind of communication doesn't rely on the criticism of "who" the other person is, but rather "actions" that they have performed. If you criticize a trait that someone has, then you're criticizing a fundamental aspect of who they are. This is divisive and makes any problem seem a thousand times worse than it might actually be. This is because you've subtly implied that the problem is inherent and not something that can be changed.
To that end, statements of universal being should be avoided as well. "You are..." The less definitive your language becomes, the easier it is to understand where you're coming from.
"You are an angry person." - This is a hurtful and definitive statement about someone that cannot be remedied because it's definitional.
"You seem angry today." - This is a lot more tentative and doesn't say anything about "who" the person is, but rather, how they're acting. What's better is that it's approached from the perspective that the speaker might be wrong. "Seem." It indicates perceptual thought rather than a factual certitude.
"I'm getting the impression that something has been frustrating you lately. Do you want to talk about it?" - This is even more directly admitting that it's simply your perception, it's less accusatory, it uses less demeaning language (frustration is acceptable. Anger typically isn't), and it's on a more vague timeline. What's more, it invites the listener to partake in active steps to solve the problem rather than leaving it open-ended.
2. Contempt
This one is basically a nastier version of criticism. It looks directly at a person, takes a perceived permanent trait, and establishes a clear distaste for it. This is typical bully behavior that we're all capable of given the appropriate circumstances.
It often takes the form in demeaning insults, threats, condescension, and the intent to either hurt or subdue. Given that contempt is usually just a more extreme criticism, it shouldn't warrant a whole lot more in the way of description. Basically, if you solve the problem of personal criticism, you shouldn't notice any contempt cropping up either.
3. Defensiveness
Defensiveness is, like criticism, something so common and easy to do, we don't typically catch ourselves in the midst of this transgression. This takes the form of shifting responsibility from yourself to another target.
"It wasn't my fault. *insert excuse*"
"It didn't happen."
"I wouldn't have done it if you didn't ____"
"Yes, but..."
This is simply the act of avoiding the humility we should be pursuing when we've done something to upset someone else.
This particular issue of communication treads into some very tricky territory. Because humans, being creatures of reasoning (sometimes) want to explain and add footnotes to everything. We want the blame to be shifted either to another person or a faceless idea. We want it not to be on us.
This isn't something we do necessarily because we want to weasel out of trouble we deserve to be in. Lots of times, we genuinely don't think we did anything wrong by our own moral standards. But here's the funny thing about relationships:
Your standards don't matter when it comes to breaking other peoples' standards.
If a really good friend is uncomfortable with the word "cunt," but you're not, should you still be "allowed" to use it? Well, sure. No one's going to stop you. But your friend will be made uncomfortable by something you can avoid doing without much difficulty.
"Yes, but swearing doesn't hurt anyone."
"Yes, but it's just a word."
"Well, you use the word 'fuck.' Why is this so different?"
While these positions may be valid in terms of an actual argumentative debate on the topic of language and its function in society, you're displacing the simple fact that you made someone else uncomfortable. Someone that you care about. You can try to change their opinion, but there's a time and place for that discussion. That time and place is not typically right after stomping on their comfort zone.
So, what should you do? Well, there's nothing wrong with explaining your position, but in order to avoid looking like a weasel, just apologize. Sincerely, unabashedly, and without a "but..." afterwords.
Even if you didn't break any of your own standards, you did break someone else's and made them uncomfortable. For that, you can be apologetic. For making them uncomfortable, you can be apologetic. This doesn't necessarily mean that you've admitted some sort of innate moral "wrong" with what you've done, just that what you've done had the unintended consequence of hurting someone important.
"I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. It was not my intention. The reason I did it was _______, but I understand that it made you uncomfortable regardless."
If at all possible, try ending it with an assurance that you'll try to prevent that kind of behavior in the future (at least around the person who's uncomfortable)
4. Stonewalling
Here's the biggy. This one's real easy to do and incredibly effective for making a problem "go away." I put that in quotations because it really just sweeps the problem under a rug, rather than making it go away entirely.
Stonewalling is the act of shutting down a conversation. It's when you become silent, unresponsive, unemotive, non-communicative, and withdrawn. Disapproval, coldness, distance, unhappiness, and frustration are all associated feelings.
To be perfectly clear, sometimes taking yourself out of a conversation that's going nowhere is both necessary and healthy, but only if you return to the conversation later, and only if there's an understanding between both parties in the discussion that it's a temporary measure taken to cool down.
Subtle emotional manipulation falls under this category, and it's a pattern of action that's far easier to slip into than you might guess. That little hint of disapproval, but not actually talking about it forces the person you're talking to to decide on their own terms if they want to betray you or betray themselves. It's a guilt-inducing maneuver that a lot of people do unconsciously- sometimes not intending to cause their partner any stress, but the result is the same either way.
Passive aggressive behavior falls carefully between criticism and stonewalling.
By no means are these end-all-be-all rules, but they're definitely something you should keep your eyes out for. Try to communicate openly, honestly, politely, and humbly whenever possible.
I am guilty of stonewalling with more frequency than any of the others. I'm trying to end ties with this kind of behavior.
What's your communication sin?
Returning with a Frosty Vengeance
HolycrapI'mback.
I have lots to say and lots to do, so I may be bringing the blog back up to semi-regular updates. (Partially at the request of someone important)
Alright, so my last post was... less than the most uplifting post I've ever had. To cut a rather long story short, ties were indeed severed and the relationship was effectively ended in its entirety after about a year and a half. Having left this blog for some three months without looking back, I've found myself in a drastically different situation than I was when I departed. In almost every conceivable way, actually. To give you a brief update;
I got a new job in August. Something more stable, fulltime, and that provides healthcare and dental. Nothing against my old boss as a person, but it wasn't a terribly professional environment, nor was it financially stable. Part of my stress in August was related to the impending collapse of my employment and the anxiety brought on by interviews. I do not like interviews.
However, now that I have a fulltime job and my money woes have largely vanished, a significant portion of my heart and mind have been released from a rather ironclad grip. Combined with the removal of the obviously problematic relationship in my life, and I feel as light as air! However, there's still more good news; I actually may have figured out what I want to pursue with my life, which if you've noticed, has been a stress-inducing concern of mine for some time now.
In discussions with a new friend on the topic of academia, I have found a ludicrous amount of excitement in the field of game studies in culture and society. It really seems so simple as it combines my dual loves of critical analysis with game design. Yet somehow, the very concept eluded me, skirting just outside my peripheral vision for years- some sort of horrible combination between Slender (The Hide Behind) and a life dream.
As a result of this rather jarring epiphany, I've sought guidance from two of my professors, bought three books on the subject, read through a few academic articles, and I've sent an email to a prominent author in the field. Given my normal procrastination and laziness, this is a clear indicator that I'm onto something. And, to give you a final piece of delicious news, the convergence between my epiphany, new job, and loss of an unhealthy relationship had one final component to it; My SSRIs began kicking in. As a result, I have effectively suffered a biological, emotional, psychological, and financial turnaround. I couldn't tell you what the odds were that all these elements would fall into place at the same time, but I would hazard a wager that the odds are low. But, I'm absolutely not about to complain about some good luck.
(Also, I shaved my head. So there's that)
So, what am I doing now? Career-wise, I'm a legal assistant at a small law firm in Lexington. My job affords me a great deal of freedom and opportunity as well as a healthy and stable environment in which I can function.
I'm also giving serious consideration to how I interact with people and the way I view the world around me. It's becoming more apparent that life is absolutely too short to spend it hiding the truth from the people who matter to me. Life is also too short to not stand up for the things that I truly believe in or to accept a mediocre life. In drunken frustration, I sent a number of messages to people close to me or who had otherwise affected me in some way over the past few years. Most of them were met with positive responses, and only one did not receive a response at all. However, the best response I think I got was from my oldest brother, to whom I've never really had much of a connection. I'm happy to note that we had our first serious talk about life a few days ago.
I have an enormous amount of work left to do, and I will always be growing, but I am... sincerely happy for the first time in a long time. Were it not for the fact that this feeling has lasted a month, I might have assumed it to be an episode of mania, but the feeling is getting progressively more holistic and strong as time continues to march onward. I have no delusions that this trend is going to continue indefinitely or even that when my feelings plateau, they'll stay as high as they are. Further, some of my fingers still look like I regularly run them through garbage disposals (though at the time of writing this, only three fingers are currently ripped up). So there's obviously a lot that still needs done, but I also have my entire life to continue working on everything I set my eyes on.
I have many things to look forward to, and many things to be happy about. I invite you to join me as I document my thoughts down this fascinating road.
(Fair warning: I may start dweebing out about games moreso than I already have now. I'm still trying to pinpoint the effects this change is having on me)
I have lots to say and lots to do, so I may be bringing the blog back up to semi-regular updates. (Partially at the request of someone important)
Alright, so my last post was... less than the most uplifting post I've ever had. To cut a rather long story short, ties were indeed severed and the relationship was effectively ended in its entirety after about a year and a half. Having left this blog for some three months without looking back, I've found myself in a drastically different situation than I was when I departed. In almost every conceivable way, actually. To give you a brief update;
I got a new job in August. Something more stable, fulltime, and that provides healthcare and dental. Nothing against my old boss as a person, but it wasn't a terribly professional environment, nor was it financially stable. Part of my stress in August was related to the impending collapse of my employment and the anxiety brought on by interviews. I do not like interviews.
However, now that I have a fulltime job and my money woes have largely vanished, a significant portion of my heart and mind have been released from a rather ironclad grip. Combined with the removal of the obviously problematic relationship in my life, and I feel as light as air! However, there's still more good news; I actually may have figured out what I want to pursue with my life, which if you've noticed, has been a stress-inducing concern of mine for some time now.
In discussions with a new friend on the topic of academia, I have found a ludicrous amount of excitement in the field of game studies in culture and society. It really seems so simple as it combines my dual loves of critical analysis with game design. Yet somehow, the very concept eluded me, skirting just outside my peripheral vision for years- some sort of horrible combination between Slender (The Hide Behind) and a life dream.
As a result of this rather jarring epiphany, I've sought guidance from two of my professors, bought three books on the subject, read through a few academic articles, and I've sent an email to a prominent author in the field. Given my normal procrastination and laziness, this is a clear indicator that I'm onto something. And, to give you a final piece of delicious news, the convergence between my epiphany, new job, and loss of an unhealthy relationship had one final component to it; My SSRIs began kicking in. As a result, I have effectively suffered a biological, emotional, psychological, and financial turnaround. I couldn't tell you what the odds were that all these elements would fall into place at the same time, but I would hazard a wager that the odds are low. But, I'm absolutely not about to complain about some good luck.
(Also, I shaved my head. So there's that)
So, what am I doing now? Career-wise, I'm a legal assistant at a small law firm in Lexington. My job affords me a great deal of freedom and opportunity as well as a healthy and stable environment in which I can function.
I'm also giving serious consideration to how I interact with people and the way I view the world around me. It's becoming more apparent that life is absolutely too short to spend it hiding the truth from the people who matter to me. Life is also too short to not stand up for the things that I truly believe in or to accept a mediocre life. In drunken frustration, I sent a number of messages to people close to me or who had otherwise affected me in some way over the past few years. Most of them were met with positive responses, and only one did not receive a response at all. However, the best response I think I got was from my oldest brother, to whom I've never really had much of a connection. I'm happy to note that we had our first serious talk about life a few days ago.
I have an enormous amount of work left to do, and I will always be growing, but I am... sincerely happy for the first time in a long time. Were it not for the fact that this feeling has lasted a month, I might have assumed it to be an episode of mania, but the feeling is getting progressively more holistic and strong as time continues to march onward. I have no delusions that this trend is going to continue indefinitely or even that when my feelings plateau, they'll stay as high as they are. Further, some of my fingers still look like I regularly run them through garbage disposals (though at the time of writing this, only three fingers are currently ripped up). So there's obviously a lot that still needs done, but I also have my entire life to continue working on everything I set my eyes on.
I have many things to look forward to, and many things to be happy about. I invite you to join me as I document my thoughts down this fascinating road.
(Fair warning: I may start dweebing out about games moreso than I already have now. I'm still trying to pinpoint the effects this change is having on me)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)