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
Monday, November 25, 2013
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)
Monday, August 12, 2013
Thoughts on Sanity and a Waning Relationship
It's been a while, and I really wish my next blog post would have been under more pleasant circumstances. Instead, I've spiraled to a new low, which is fabulous.
This summer has played hell on my psychological and emotional state in a number of ways, but the worst of it is blossoming right now. Except instead of a gorgeous flower, it's a hideous 3-headed spider the likes of which only demons dream. [Picture not included]
I've been struggling with a lot of damage over the past year, finding it difficult to center myself and solve my problems due to the completely bleak outlook I have on the future. Fortunately, up until this point, I had a wonderful and supportive girlfriend who was there to help me balance, giving me the gift of her presence to calm me down around once a week. Despite this positive factor in my life, I also struggled with trying to grow the relationship into something I could see being a part of my life for many years to come.
I bit more than I could chew with that decision. The added stress was something more to obsess over, furthering my downward spiral, while simultaneously failing miserably to actually solve any problems. Looking back, I should maybe have made it a more relaxed relationship without as many serious undertones. Instead, I ran too fast and too far into something when I had too many other problems to deal with. Regardless, what's done is done. My various psychological problems led me down a twisted road where my girlfriend felt unappreciated and untrusted- justifiably so- I have not been in an adequate place to give her what she deserves. The end result is that she's too stressed to deal with me at all. So, we took a break. Unfortunately, I didn't realize what kind of problems that would incite in my brain, and as it turns out, uncertainty is the dull blade by which I am now being stabbed.
The problems created and the damage caused may be permanent by this point. In any case, what I need and she needs are inextricably different. I need closure and/or someone who is here for me in the worst time of my life. She needs for me not to be there. As a result, I am plagued by a lack of options beyond cutting ties. Of course, I have the constant desire to talk about this with her, but I cannot, which is possibly the most frustrating and hurtful part of this.
I realize the selfishness on both sides, of course, but I cannot help but have the crushing feeling that she has abandoned me (and by association, our relationship) to the wolves when I tripped in the interest of saving herself from a similar fate***. Whether or not this is how she sees it or how she intended or feels herself is not something I can know (it is for this reason I'm making a blog post at all. I just have to get this out or I'm going to actual-facts explode into a number of depressingly shaded ribbons)
I don't blame her for her choices, though. I understand them- and I know that it's my own failings that caused the situation to arise in the first place. Realistically, this simply never should have happened. For that, and a countless other reasons, I feel tremendous guilt and sorrow, which is only furthered by my writing this post.
Part of my pain is in not understanding the perspective of one who needs to sever contact for weeks in order to heal. I find myself unable to avoid thinking about her constantly, worrying about what I've done and whether or not she is even interested in keeping the relationship alive. Is it really so easy to cut off thoughts like that for her? And do I even want to be in a relationship where my partner doesn't even want to think about me if that's the case?
And again, this would all be something to ask directly-- if only I could. And it's that uncertainty and the inability to have an open discussion that's currently destroying my brain and body. I've talked her into what may theoretically be one last visit this week as a compromise, but she's already expressed the desire for it to not be stressful, so what can I do? I have to sit on these fears, ideas, and emotions even though she'll be right there. Even if I was sure I wanted to break up with her, would I justifiably be able to do it while she's here? But, of course, I don't know if I want to. I haven't a goddamned clue, and it's impossible for me to figure it out until she deigns to say that we can communicate about our relationship again.
I wish I could be mad at her, but I can see myself doing the same thing in that position. Running away from crazy.
So, here I am, spilling my guts to the faceless internet, trying desperately to bandage my psychological wounds before I fulfill a daily fantasy of climbing to the top of a building in downtown Lexington and ending these... feelings.
I love her, and I want to work this out. I want to find out what behaviors of mine have caused the most harm so that I can try to at least curb them. I want to work out how to make her happier. I want to make me happier. But I can't do that in this limbo. I can't.
I just can't sit here not knowing anything. But she's never been one to tell me what's going on in her life. And I don't blame her for that. I can't blame her.
It's been me all along. My issues. It's always been me.
It's always been Wankershim. (Because ending on a Bravest Warriors joke is mature)
*** It's worth noting that I had a discussion with someone who means a lot to me about this issue and she rightly pointed out that this is not a fair position. They are my demons, not hers. If my demons are causing the relationship distress, it is not fair to expect her to hang around while I get my shit together. I am glad that my position has shifted on this, but I'm sad it has not shifted to be any more easy for myself. I find no solace in these trials- only exhaustion, fatigue, and sadness. I am so sorry...
This summer has played hell on my psychological and emotional state in a number of ways, but the worst of it is blossoming right now. Except instead of a gorgeous flower, it's a hideous 3-headed spider the likes of which only demons dream. [Picture not included]
I've been struggling with a lot of damage over the past year, finding it difficult to center myself and solve my problems due to the completely bleak outlook I have on the future. Fortunately, up until this point, I had a wonderful and supportive girlfriend who was there to help me balance, giving me the gift of her presence to calm me down around once a week. Despite this positive factor in my life, I also struggled with trying to grow the relationship into something I could see being a part of my life for many years to come.
I bit more than I could chew with that decision. The added stress was something more to obsess over, furthering my downward spiral, while simultaneously failing miserably to actually solve any problems. Looking back, I should maybe have made it a more relaxed relationship without as many serious undertones. Instead, I ran too fast and too far into something when I had too many other problems to deal with. Regardless, what's done is done. My various psychological problems led me down a twisted road where my girlfriend felt unappreciated and untrusted- justifiably so- I have not been in an adequate place to give her what she deserves. The end result is that she's too stressed to deal with me at all. So, we took a break. Unfortunately, I didn't realize what kind of problems that would incite in my brain, and as it turns out, uncertainty is the dull blade by which I am now being stabbed.
The problems created and the damage caused may be permanent by this point. In any case, what I need and she needs are inextricably different. I need closure and/or someone who is here for me in the worst time of my life. She needs for me not to be there. As a result, I am plagued by a lack of options beyond cutting ties. Of course, I have the constant desire to talk about this with her, but I cannot, which is possibly the most frustrating and hurtful part of this.
I realize the selfishness on both sides, of course, but I cannot help but have the crushing feeling that she has abandoned me (and by association, our relationship) to the wolves when I tripped in the interest of saving herself from a similar fate***. Whether or not this is how she sees it or how she intended or feels herself is not something I can know (it is for this reason I'm making a blog post at all. I just have to get this out or I'm going to actual-facts explode into a number of depressingly shaded ribbons)
I don't blame her for her choices, though. I understand them- and I know that it's my own failings that caused the situation to arise in the first place. Realistically, this simply never should have happened. For that, and a countless other reasons, I feel tremendous guilt and sorrow, which is only furthered by my writing this post.
Part of my pain is in not understanding the perspective of one who needs to sever contact for weeks in order to heal. I find myself unable to avoid thinking about her constantly, worrying about what I've done and whether or not she is even interested in keeping the relationship alive. Is it really so easy to cut off thoughts like that for her? And do I even want to be in a relationship where my partner doesn't even want to think about me if that's the case?
And again, this would all be something to ask directly-- if only I could. And it's that uncertainty and the inability to have an open discussion that's currently destroying my brain and body. I've talked her into what may theoretically be one last visit this week as a compromise, but she's already expressed the desire for it to not be stressful, so what can I do? I have to sit on these fears, ideas, and emotions even though she'll be right there. Even if I was sure I wanted to break up with her, would I justifiably be able to do it while she's here? But, of course, I don't know if I want to. I haven't a goddamned clue, and it's impossible for me to figure it out until she deigns to say that we can communicate about our relationship again.
I wish I could be mad at her, but I can see myself doing the same thing in that position. Running away from crazy.
So, here I am, spilling my guts to the faceless internet, trying desperately to bandage my psychological wounds before I fulfill a daily fantasy of climbing to the top of a building in downtown Lexington and ending these... feelings.
I love her, and I want to work this out. I want to find out what behaviors of mine have caused the most harm so that I can try to at least curb them. I want to work out how to make her happier. I want to make me happier. But I can't do that in this limbo. I can't.
I just can't sit here not knowing anything. But she's never been one to tell me what's going on in her life. And I don't blame her for that. I can't blame her.
It's been me all along. My issues. It's always been me.
It's always been Wankershim. (Because ending on a Bravest Warriors joke is mature)
*** It's worth noting that I had a discussion with someone who means a lot to me about this issue and she rightly pointed out that this is not a fair position. They are my demons, not hers. If my demons are causing the relationship distress, it is not fair to expect her to hang around while I get my shit together. I am glad that my position has shifted on this, but I'm sad it has not shifted to be any more easy for myself. I find no solace in these trials- only exhaustion, fatigue, and sadness. I am so sorry...
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Religion and the Earth (and Delicious Tales of Perfection)
So, my current employer and his family all seem to be of the same religious persuasion. This has largely had no affect on me as I work- there's been too much happening (that's been negative) to be praising Jesus every fifteen minutes. However, every once in a while some of the discussion of religion slips through the cracks. In most cases, it's innocuous enough- a reference to God here, a blessing there. On Friday, however, my boss's wife was showing me pictures from a mildly famous local photographer she was going on a trip with. These were gorgeous prints of nature in the thick of it. My viewing pleasure was interrupted with a challenge that my mind didn't want to back down from:
"And this all started with the big bang." I wasn't sure if it was sardonic or not until it was followed immediately with, "No sir, it's just too perfect. It had to have been created by God."
I opted not to get into this discussion in person for fear of alienating someone partially responsible for my income. However, I have thoughts on the subject of perfection that I need an outlet on, so here we go.
Perfection, an entirely too subjective term, is being used here from an emotional perspective. Nature is aesthetically perfect in this case. This, of course, ignores all elements of nature that are not aesthetically pleasing, like perhaps some of the uglier plants that grow here, or some of our hideous creatures. With that in mind, it's not likely that the earth was created with the express intention of being aesthetically pleasing. Rather, that seems to be a pleasant side effect (it's at this point that we could even get into a long discussion about how humans' brains may have developed to find common elements of nature aesthetically pleasing, rather than nature growing to become aesthetically pleasing). So, if nature's not flawless in its beauty, what about its function?
That seems doomed to failure as well. Perfect functionality would mean a completely self-sustaining model that would likely use as few differing elements as possible in order to maintain homogeneity and, therefore, predictability. The more different species you have, the harder it is to predict the course of nature. Moreover, the more everything hates everything else. Take a look at humans- we couldn't last with a few different skin colors without trying to kill each other. Ants that share most characteristics have their loyalties in their colony- some will out and out murder other colonies/species for getting in their way.
Further, the existence of massive ice ages seems to suggest that nature is not interested in maintaining a strict balance at all times. Perfect functionality doesn't appear likely.
Of course, all this talk is on terms I would not choose in an ideal setting. We've been assuming that the earth was indeed created as it is- an idea I do not find particularly believable. Considering that we can prove the existence of evolution through simple observation and testing (introducing a colony of flies to a single colored food source and their children start to turn that color over time, for example), evolution would appear to be a virtual certitude. With that in mind, plant and animal variation is completely explained.
More to my point though, I think this is exactly why it's so beautiful. Plants and animals evolved in the specific directions they did purely by happenstance that worked well. We have the enormous plethora of plants and animals that we do because we got lucky. This variation allows for constant exploration and discovery, as well as the promise for continually new species to come into existence- it's so much more interesting than a self-sufficient model of consistency. I find it so much more perfect and enjoyable because it just sort of happened, rather than being created.
We would get bored if the world wasn't constantly changing.
But, consistency gives comfort. Change brings conflict and fear. Belief in a consistent, unchanging, perfect world gives people the belief that they don't have a responsibility to protect and savor what we have.
This shouldn't win out over intrigue and wonder- it really shouldn't, but the reaction is understandable...
Additionally, before I wrap up, there's a local Lexington church/business (I really don't know which) that has a fantastically catchy phrase in bold letters on their car and place of businship (business worship?)
"What if it's True?"
This is a misused attempt at Paschal's wager, which is a philosophical attempt at proving why believing in God is smart, regardless of your faith. If there's no God and you do believe, nothing happens. If there is a God and you do believe, you win. If there's no God and you don't believe, nothing happens. If there's a God and you don't believe, you "lose."
Seems airtight on the outside. Believing in God is, at worst, not bad, and at best, gets you into heaven.
However, both of these approaches ignore a few incredibly critical details about religion (and in particular, Christianity).
1. Believing in God because it's a statistically wise investment is the exact opposite of "faith." Meaning you've chosen God for selfish reasons and you may not actually have faith, an element often required (depending on your denomination) in order to ascend.
2. The existence of the possibility for something to be true isn't evidence or a good reason to actually believe in that thing. What if it's the case that all water in America is laced with mind control drugs? Are you going to suddenly stop drinking water just because the possibility exists?
3. (And this one's the big one) Other religions are completely ignored in this argument. So what if Christianity's true? It seems to have an equal or lesser chance of being true as compared to every older religion on the planet- and there are a lot of them. Many times, these religions suggest that you spend life in eternal torment for believing in the wrong God. This makes Paschal's wager completely useless, since it adds a strict third element that's very bad to the equation. Because non-religious people aren't holding any foreign Gods above the "real" God, it's actually possible that being non-religious is the statistically smarter choice here.
(This whole rant wasn't related, I really just wanted to be angry after seeing that company/church car)
"And this all started with the big bang." I wasn't sure if it was sardonic or not until it was followed immediately with, "No sir, it's just too perfect. It had to have been created by God."
I opted not to get into this discussion in person for fear of alienating someone partially responsible for my income. However, I have thoughts on the subject of perfection that I need an outlet on, so here we go.
Perfection, an entirely too subjective term, is being used here from an emotional perspective. Nature is aesthetically perfect in this case. This, of course, ignores all elements of nature that are not aesthetically pleasing, like perhaps some of the uglier plants that grow here, or some of our hideous creatures. With that in mind, it's not likely that the earth was created with the express intention of being aesthetically pleasing. Rather, that seems to be a pleasant side effect (it's at this point that we could even get into a long discussion about how humans' brains may have developed to find common elements of nature aesthetically pleasing, rather than nature growing to become aesthetically pleasing). So, if nature's not flawless in its beauty, what about its function?
That seems doomed to failure as well. Perfect functionality would mean a completely self-sustaining model that would likely use as few differing elements as possible in order to maintain homogeneity and, therefore, predictability. The more different species you have, the harder it is to predict the course of nature. Moreover, the more everything hates everything else. Take a look at humans- we couldn't last with a few different skin colors without trying to kill each other. Ants that share most characteristics have their loyalties in their colony- some will out and out murder other colonies/species for getting in their way.
Further, the existence of massive ice ages seems to suggest that nature is not interested in maintaining a strict balance at all times. Perfect functionality doesn't appear likely.
Of course, all this talk is on terms I would not choose in an ideal setting. We've been assuming that the earth was indeed created as it is- an idea I do not find particularly believable. Considering that we can prove the existence of evolution through simple observation and testing (introducing a colony of flies to a single colored food source and their children start to turn that color over time, for example), evolution would appear to be a virtual certitude. With that in mind, plant and animal variation is completely explained.
More to my point though, I think this is exactly why it's so beautiful. Plants and animals evolved in the specific directions they did purely by happenstance that worked well. We have the enormous plethora of plants and animals that we do because we got lucky. This variation allows for constant exploration and discovery, as well as the promise for continually new species to come into existence- it's so much more interesting than a self-sufficient model of consistency. I find it so much more perfect and enjoyable because it just sort of happened, rather than being created.
We would get bored if the world wasn't constantly changing.
But, consistency gives comfort. Change brings conflict and fear. Belief in a consistent, unchanging, perfect world gives people the belief that they don't have a responsibility to protect and savor what we have.
This shouldn't win out over intrigue and wonder- it really shouldn't, but the reaction is understandable...
Additionally, before I wrap up, there's a local Lexington church/business (I really don't know which) that has a fantastically catchy phrase in bold letters on their car and place of businship (business worship?)
"What if it's True?"
This is a misused attempt at Paschal's wager, which is a philosophical attempt at proving why believing in God is smart, regardless of your faith. If there's no God and you do believe, nothing happens. If there is a God and you do believe, you win. If there's no God and you don't believe, nothing happens. If there's a God and you don't believe, you "lose."
Seems airtight on the outside. Believing in God is, at worst, not bad, and at best, gets you into heaven.
However, both of these approaches ignore a few incredibly critical details about religion (and in particular, Christianity).
1. Believing in God because it's a statistically wise investment is the exact opposite of "faith." Meaning you've chosen God for selfish reasons and you may not actually have faith, an element often required (depending on your denomination) in order to ascend.
2. The existence of the possibility for something to be true isn't evidence or a good reason to actually believe in that thing. What if it's the case that all water in America is laced with mind control drugs? Are you going to suddenly stop drinking water just because the possibility exists?
3. (And this one's the big one) Other religions are completely ignored in this argument. So what if Christianity's true? It seems to have an equal or lesser chance of being true as compared to every older religion on the planet- and there are a lot of them. Many times, these religions suggest that you spend life in eternal torment for believing in the wrong God. This makes Paschal's wager completely useless, since it adds a strict third element that's very bad to the equation. Because non-religious people aren't holding any foreign Gods above the "real" God, it's actually possible that being non-religious is the statistically smarter choice here.
(This whole rant wasn't related, I really just wanted to be angry after seeing that company/church car)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)