Robin ([info]zanfur) wrote,
@ 2006-10-12 03:56:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:introspection, meta, philosophy, psychology, rants

Mob wrangling
I often do things that anger people.

Yeah, what else is new, right? Everyone does. One of the things that's somewhat different, in my case, is that I often know I'm doing it. I often do it on purpose, knowing that it will anger someone. I don't do it with the purpose of angering them. I can imagine some improbable scenarios where I would want to anger someone, for their own safety or something similar, but I really don't think a situation like that has come up. Or is likely to.

I try to be aware of the emotional responses people will likely have to my actions. Sometimes, it's intrigue. Sometimes, it's anger. Sometimes, it's apathy. Sometimes, it's joy. I really do spend a lot of time, energy, and effort to be aware of the feelings of those around me. I'm nowhere near omniscient, but I think I've got a decent grasp on what happens in social interactions, at least emotionally. Contrary to popular belief.

Many people -- and they may be better off than I am -- do their best to keep people from becoming angry at them. I can certainly understand that. People being angry at me sucks. I hate it. It feels bad. I'm sure there are lots of other, machiavellian reasons to dislike it, like lost opportunities or something ... but really, the feeling of rejection is the worst of it. I usually don't think very highly of those people, though. I wouldn't want to be one of those people. If I am over-scared of people being angry with me, I become a doormat, easily pushed around, and often put into situations where I'm not really fond of any of my options. If I don't risk rejection, then I can't really be accepted, either.

There are a few things I value more than avoiding rejection. One of them, and I'm not completely convinced this is a good thing, is avoiding manipulation. If you need some control over me to accept me, well ... I'd rather you reject me. Angrily, if that's your wont. Just a thing. I could probably change it, with effort, over time, if I wanted.

I've actually been doing just that, to a degree. Used to be that whenever I sniffed an attempt to manipulate me (and everyone does it, subconsciously: using societal expectations is how we get along in the world, after all), I would dig in and refuse to be moved. Occasionally this involved being somewhat aggressively stubborn. Well, it often involved that. These days, if it's a small thing that I really don't care about, I don't bother. In other words, I don't care so much about the fact that it's manipulation, and instead care more about the difference in how much I care to do what people want me to do.

But! When that manipulation is coming from someone I interact with a fair bit, or expect to interact with in the future, suddenly the fact that it's manipulation actually becomes important again. It's that whole "slippery slope" thing, to mis-use a metaphor: It's easier, right now, to simply succumb, but succumbing now makes it more difficult to resist in the future. By succumbing now, I'm establishing a pattern, and then any deviance from that pattern is taken as a sign of ill will, and then I have to deal with that, too. I think this is related to that "implicit social contract" thing everyone is always blathering about.

Here, it's more important to me that I maintain my autonomy. So I do. Even if it angers whomever. (Well, I'll make exceptions when I think angering whomever will be directly hazardous to my general well-being. That would rather obviate the whole point now, wouldn't it? The idea of maintaining my autonomy is avoid such hazards.) The way I figure it, if someone will reject me for not cowtowing to their implicit wishes, I'd much rather they do it sooner than later. I rationalize it to myself by thinking that these people would reject me, eventually, in any case ... so I'm just kind of accelerating things. Yeah, I know that's often wrong.

It still sucks.

I have a reputation for being stubborn. And for not listening. And for discounting what other people say. Oddly, I also have a reputation for listening very well, and giving weight to what other people say, and for being very malleable. They're all true. The negative ones are more prevalent, of course, being negative and all. If it's something I've heard dozens of times before, I'm not really gonna bother re-thinking about it unless something drastic has changed, or a lot of time has passed and I think it's wise to revisit old conundrums. I'm definitely going to stick to my guns until someone gives me some better guns. Still, when someone actually does say something I haven't considered, I stop and think about it. Or I go home and think about it, because I'm too cowardly to back down and examine it when it's presented. When I'm given an insight I haven't thought of before, I'll incorporate it. When I'm hearing things I haven't heard three dozen times already, I'll listen attentively. If you're just repeating the party line ... I'm either zoning or cutting you off.

I definitely have a reputation for arrogance. No getting around that one. Even my best friends think I'm arrogant. Hell, I think I'm arrogant. I think it largely comes from the not listening. C'est la vie.

There are certain things that trigger the loud, blaring sirens that are my manipulation alarms. The concept of moral imperative is probably the biggest. Someone tells me how I ought to act, big claxons start blasting in my head. Especially if it's one of those "just because" kind of things, and not toward any particular goal. Pretty much anything that implies that the request is coming from something other than the person talking will do it, too: Saying things like "the boss would like it", "you'll do it if you love me", "it's the right thing to do", "it's just what good people do", the like.

Also, things that make requests that are difficult to turn down, such "Would you mind?" Minding is a much higher barrier than saying you'd rather not: It's extremely impolite to mind something, and it's expected (hah!) that you do what you've just claimed you don't mind doing. Be wary of those who ask you if you mind, but don't ask you to actually do anything directly. I'm not saying to be wary of anyone who asks if you'd mind something -- I will often ask if someone would mind, as a query to find out if they actually mind or not. If it's apparent they mind, even if they say they don't, I'll tell them not to bother. If it's apparent they don't mind, I'll ask them to do it. Be wary of people who consistently use it as their way of "requesting things without requesting things", though.

If you say I ought to finish my homework so I get a better grade, that's explicitly stating what you think that particular "ought" is likely to accomplish. If you say I should tell the truth because people don't trust liars, that's once again saying what that particular "ought" is likely to accomplish. If I care about people trusting me ... yeah, kinda obvious. If you tell me I should tell the truth, and when I ask why you say something along the lines of "you just should" ... yeah, not gonna fly with me so well.

To me, most of these things roughly translate to, "I want you to do this thing, but I'm too lame to actually take accountability for that desire." My opinion of you drops, my respect for you drops, my attachment to you drops, and my trust for you drops. Doesn't mean I don't still like you; I just like you less.

As such, I treat such things like they were desires of the person in front of me. If I wouldn't do it were it a request of the person standing in front of me, I won't do it. Actually, I'll often ask if that's what they want me to do. If they say no, I'll go on my merry way, leaving them frustrated that they can't get me to do what they want without taking accountability for the desire. If they say yes, I'll usually do it, leaving them frustrated that they actually had to admit they wanted it, instead of putting all the accountability elsewhere.

This is when people get angry. Either way. I am fully, completely aware of this. Usually. Makes sense, doesn't it? People who feel the desire to avoid personal accountability are the ones who would get angry about actually needing to take personal accountability for things, whether they did it or not. Sometimes people just get confused by the bit where I act differently than they expect, and anger is a great, tried-and-true cover for confusion. But see, that's okay. I'd rather deal with the anger and the rejection than with being a doormat. This way, even if you don't like me, at least I like me, and that's really important to me. It's more important than you liking me.

I'm not trying to change how you act -- you can continue to be obtuse about it, and you'll continue to get stonewalled, and if that's the way you like it, that's fine by me. I won't have much interest in you for very long, and it will likely be mutual.

I could get into a whole bunch of reasons I think this is a reasonable and positive approach. First off, by giving you what you want only when you're straight with me, I'm setting up a precedence where it (hopefully) becomes obvious to you that the best way to get what you want from me is to be straight about it. The people who refuse to be straight with me are not people I'd typically want around. The people who'd get angry with me for not allowing them to push me around without blame are not the people I'd particularly want to have pushing me around (believe it or not, there are actually people I'd trust to push me around). There's even the arrogant bit about how if you learn how to deal with me, you'll be more able to play well with others in general -- which I truly believe, arrogant as it is.

Now, before you balk (I'm too late, aren't I?) and say, "but that really is what you should do, sometimes -- it has nothing to do with being straight about things!" -- try to figure out why you'd say it, and to me in particular. Why do you care? Why bother wasting your breath? It's because you want something, of course. Sure, it might be true that it's really what I should do. Why do you care? Because you want me to do it, of course. If you can't be straight with me about that part of it, well, we have issues. Even if all you want is for me to be a good person, you good samaritan you, then that's once again a request you have of me: you want me to be a good person. Just admit it and move on.

Sometimes, you might just want to give me information, in case I wasn't aware of it, just to be nice, because you like being nice. In that case, the only thing you want from me (always something) is for me to listen to it. If I already know it, then you've achieved what you set out to do. If I don't already know it, that's cool. That's awesome, in fact. I'll thank you for the information, file it away for future reference, and go on with my life. If I didn't know the boss wanted so-and-so done by Thursday instead of Friday, I'll probably be really glad you told me. If you really are just looking out for me, then you might prefer I do what you suggest, because you want the best for me and all, but you likely wouldn't get angry if I didn't use your information. You'd probably think I was stupid and hopeless, instead. If you actually get angry about it, you wanted something more.

So, yeah. I do things that make people angry. It doesn't make everyone angry, just those who aren't being straight with me. Sadly, this is often because they're not being straight with themselves. Either way, it's people I'm not terribly inclined to get close to, and although it sucks to have people be angry at me, I think the precedent is worth it.

I am so gonna get lynched someday.



(Post a new comment)


[info]forwrathandruin
2006-10-12 01:06 pm UTC (link)
Man, when you post, you post hard.

We need to make with the chai-house-ing again soon. [event horizon]I have such wonderful things... to show you... [/event horizon]

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-12 07:58 pm UTC (link)
I'm free pretty much whenever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sonofzeal
2006-10-12 06:35 pm UTC (link)
If forcing people to be accountable for their actions and desires makes them angry, let them being angry. Being responsible for yourself is part of being an adult. It's part of others being able to trust and respect you, and part of being able to take care of yourself when other people aren't around.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-12 07:58 pm UTC (link)
That's pretty much how I feel. I think I may bit a bit over-abrasive when I do it, though. I'm trying to find nicer ways ...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ariata
2006-10-12 07:32 pm UTC (link)
One of the things that's someone different, in my case, is that I often know I'm doing it

someone = somewhat

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-12 07:57 pm UTC (link)
Fixed, thanks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]danodude
2006-10-12 08:51 pm UTC (link)
You know, I often find your posts intriguing in the sense that they look at people in a different light. They also call out issues that I think most of us don't look into all the time (like being a doormat). I do, however, find myself not always agreeing with your conclusions on how to deal with these problems. Such is life.

Was going to comment more.. but obligations...

(Reply to this)


[info]goldfish42
2006-10-12 09:34 pm UTC (link)
Hmm. I agree with you in theory, but I find that in practice many people in our culture get really confused and even offended by direct requests. I have learned to speak the language that gets things done (not instead, but as well) for when I'm dealing with people who simply can't cope with direct mature language.

When I think about it, it pisses me off that all communication is expected to sidle up next to people and nudge them discreetly. Kinda icky, really, like the request is illegal and amoral instead of respectable. Maybe people do see any request as a bit amoral, any need as weak and presumptuous. I wonder if that is unique to America, home of The Individualist, where we try to pretend humans are not parts of an interdependant social network.

I had a customer last night who made me laugh: I asked him if he knew the price of something that was not labeled. He looked straight at me, smiled, and said "Yes."

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]aladnsane
2006-10-12 11:02 pm UTC (link)
In terms of 'other cultures' I know that atleast linguistically Spanish, French, German, Japanese (especially) and Chinese can be just as indirect. Which implies that the nations have similar attitudes, whatever those attitudes may be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-13 04:24 am UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure nearly all natural languages can be indirect.

You can be indirect without shucking personal accountability. Actually, it's awfully hard to be direct, in general -- there's just too much data, you have to use context to communicate, and that's exactly what makes a communication indirect. I'm not really talking so much about directness, and certainly don't think it's a requirement. Just be straight about your motives, is all, even if those motives are communicated indirectly, and you can be indirect while taking personal accountability for your motives.

To elaborate on the "would you mind" thing I mentioned, which is the only time I'm actually talking about "directness" above, the thing that really sets off my warning bells is when someone, after the fact, disclaims any responsibility for the request by saying things along the lines of "I didn't ask you to do that". The warnings are especially loud if I notice that the person sometimes claims that he did ask, and sometimes claims that he didn't, depending on what answer favors him at the moment. By being indirect in this particular manner, you're allowing yourself the ability to be shifty, later, by "revising history" to be one that paints you in good light, or others in bad light. Being direct removes that particular ambiguity. If someone has been shifty like this, I no longer allow them the implicit ambiguity: If such a person asks if I'd mind doing something, I ask them to clarify if they're requesting I do it or not.

I may be reading a bit more into this than is actually there, but it seems like you're trying to disagree with me that being indirect is "bad". So I figured I'd clarify that I'm not actually stating that indirectness is bad. I rather like indirectness, in fact. I really dislike it when that indirectness is used as wiggle-room to rewrite history. It's the re-writing history that I dislike, though, not the indirectness.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that a language's capacity for indirectness isn't an cultural attitude issue so much as a pragmatic one. I can certainly see pragmatic reasons for it, in any case.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]aladnsane
2006-10-13 04:57 am UTC (link)
Note that this was in response to a comment on your post, not your post.

That should clarify.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-13 06:11 am UTC (link)
Wasn't quite sure. In any case, both sides clarified now.

I think she has something on the "unique to America" front. I don't think it's actually unique to America, but I think it's a bit exacerbated. I really don't think that the capacity for indirectness means a similar attitude on the morality of being direct. I think you have something on the "same attitudes" front, too, but I think that attitude is one of getting things done, not morality.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]goldfish42
2006-10-13 06:15 am UTC (link)
"So I figured I'd clarify that I'm not actually stating that indirectness is bad. I rather like indirectness, in fact. I really dislike it when that indirectness is used as wiggle-room to rewrite history. It's the re-writing history that I dislike, though, not the indirectness."

Ah, I see the difference now. Not the method, but the goal. I think I've seen the behavior you're talking about, but never really thought about it that way. Interesting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-13 03:57 am UTC (link)
I really don't mind when the request is indirect; what I really dislike is when they try to avoid personal accountability for it. There's a difference between asking for something indirectly and trying to pretend that you never asked for it at all. Asking for something indirectly is still asking for it.

For instance, it was pretty clear that you were asking for what the price was, if he knew it. It may have been an indirect request (for information, in this case), but it was a request -- and when he said "Yes" I'm betting you asked him what that price was, because it was not your intent to avoid accountability for the request. But, if someone tells me I should clean the bathroom, that's a way of asking someone to clean the bathroom without actually taking accountability for wanting it done. Unless, of course, they don't want it done, in which case they won't care if I don't do it. If I say "I know" and then they ask me to, then it's an indirect request. Cool. If I say "I know" and then they repeat that I really should ... that's trying to avoid something, and that something is usually of the "I want you to do this" variety. If they can make guilt the motivator, then I'll be doing it to assuage guilt, and not because they wanted me to, which holds them completely without blame for the result.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mjtheanarchist
2006-10-13 12:50 am UTC (link)
And you don't like ethics??

Ok. I'll be very straight and upfront with you next time I intend to slash your tires. ;)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-13 04:18 am UTC (link)
No, I don't like ethics. I find them fairly useless, beyond the whole "understanding how other people think" bit. It's not like I can predict how someone will act by knowing what they think is ethical. It's just another post-mortem rationalization that people use to feel better about themselves.

Yeah, them's fightin' words. Whatever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]galith
2006-10-14 12:22 pm UTC (link)
This is a very provocative post. I'm kind of curious what triggered it.

At the level of broad strokes I think I agree with you; it's very important to have the people you're close to "play strait" with you, and it's better to be rejected sooner rather than later by the people who you aren't going to mesh well with. It's also important to avoid setting up patterns of behavior where you find it difficult to avoid committing to doing things you really would rather not be doing.

However, I find your argument way to simplistic. You draw a dichotomy between "being somewhat aggressively stubborn" and "being a doormat" and then explain why 'being somewhat aggressively stubborn' is your preferred path. I believe this dichotomy is false, and it is preferably to avoid both ends of the “aggressively stubborn <-> doormat” continuum. At least in most situations.

Unfortunately (at least from my perspective), an easily derived corollary of the type of argument you are providing here is that you don’t particularly value the feelings of others, even (or maybe especially) those others that are closest to you. Specifically, you don’t find angering others to be a rather minor negative on the level of ‘inconvenience’. That’s the impression you give, or gave, anyway. Intellectually, I think this is probably because you value the imperative “avoid being manipulated” so highly that it will often trump other most of the other imperatives you follow, including the imperative to “avoid angering others”. Unfortunately the crude measurement and analysis tools that most people have in their head to analyze the behavior of others has a really hard time telling the difference between those two conditions. At least, the crude measurement and analysis tools I have in my head do, and I have no reason to think the tools used by others are qualitatively different.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-14 11:32 pm UTC (link)
Of all the people that would read this, I was hoping for your input the most. Thanks.

Someone telling me I should try to have some understanding of social interactions is what triggered it, although that wasn't the whole of it.

I can see where you're getting the dichotomy bit, because that's a very easy interpretation of what I was saying ... I kind of left it ambiguous. It's not that I think that there's nothing in between. I just think I'd rather err on the side of being somewhat aggressively stubborn than on the side of being a doormat. So, yeah, I agree, there's more to it than the two extremes.

There's more to it that the value of "avoid being manipulated" being worth more. There's actually no conflict between wanting to avoid manipulation and wanting to care about the feelings of others: I just value their feelings long-term instead of short term. I believe that by allowing myself to be manipulated, I'm doing the manipulator a disservice, in a number of ways that don't directly relate to the circumstance at hand. By allowing a false perception that they actually have some sort of direct control over me to continue, I'm setting them up to fall. By doing what they want in order to avoid a conflict, I am taking away their ability to determine if I'm actually in agreement when they ask things in the future. For long-term relationships, these things are both very damaging, and very difficult to overcome.

So, yes, especially those that are closest to me are the most affected by this. If I'm only going to interact with someone for a short period of time, or only in a limited fashion, and I know it, then I don't bother avoiding those long-term hazards to their feelings. But, with the people that are closest to me, or that I know I'll be interacting with for long periods of time, I will spend the effort to make sure the long-term relationship is a better one. In other words, I'll spend the effort to take care of their feelings, long-term.

There's a balancing point (different for different people, I assume) where de-valuing their short term feelings has a negative effect that more than offsets the positive effects of avoiding those long-term hazards. This is where the conflict comes in, or so I think. I try to stay on the "overall positive effect" side of that point, and that's a guessing game to figure out how much of an effect those long-term hazards would have on a person -- in other words, a guessing game to figure out how long I'll be in their life, and how close we'll be for that duration.

The other side to this, of course, is the relatively large number of people who dislike me because they believe I'm not valuing their short-term feelings enough. I'm pretty sure most of these people would be incapable of actually having a healthy long-term relationship, if what they're looking for is just short-term appeasement. I know that everyone needs a little short-term appeasement every once in a while, and I don't begrudge them that, but I draw the line at setting precedents that need maintenance to avoid backfiring later -- this includes things like promises to always be there, commonly canceling plans to "have a talk", and allowing myself to be manipulated into places I don't like.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-14 11:54 pm UTC (link)
Gave me a lot to think about, here.

I had been aware that I was commonly misunderstood, but this is the first time I've realized how that misunderstanding happens. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm pretty sure you've told me the exact same thing before and I just didn't get it at the time. One of the reasons I wrote this post (and the last, actually) was to scream to the world that I actually am affected by when people are upset, that it's not just a minor inconvenience. It really does hurt, even if it's difficult to actually get a "pained" reaction out of me.

Trisha actually mentioned it before, too. Something along the lines of "you're so scared of being manipulated that you don't even consider that people think you don't care about them". It came very, very close to killing my relationship with her -- she dumped me, largely because she thought I didn't care about her, although we've since started dating again.

I think -- no, I'm pretty damn positive -- that I can be both looking out for the interests of a long-term relationship, while also letting people know that I am both aware of and care about how they feel. I have a couple reservations about doing that, though ... one is, although I do care, I care about long-term aspects more, and explaining that is both time-consuming and detrimental to the long-term aspects. Because it's time-consuming, it's also lots of attention, and I'm loathe to "reward" many of the ways of looking for short-term appeasement. Another thing for me to consider is that it's rather silly of me to expect people to "ask correctly" for short term emotional support, when they're currently in need of emotional support. It's a lot to balance, on the fly. The thing that has worked best for me, so far, is to be very callous, and explain the callousness later. That way, they know (post mortem) that I did really care, they get a hint of how to get immediate emotional support from me (and, I assume, others), and it sets up future incidents to become gradually healthier. What I think is healthy, anyway. I just need to be DAMN SURE to actually go back and have that not-very-fun conversation with them.

If you have, uh, better ideas ... I'm all ears.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]galith
2006-10-14 12:22 pm UTC (link)
"If you need some control over me to accept me, well ... I'd rather you reject me."

This statement, when taken in isolation and to an extreme (which is of course, unfair, but I’m going to do it anyway), is completely ridiculous. Of course people need some degree of control over others in order to accept them! At the most basic level in order to accept someone I need to know that I am capable of exerting enough control over their actions (however indirectly) to prevent them from becoming a threat to my physical existence. I would also really like the control to prevent them from becoming a threat to anything else I care about, and ideally I want a kind of control that will allow me to guide their actions to work in service of the things I care about.

Now all of the statements in the preceding paragraph would be just as true, and possibly even more true, of I replaced the word ‘control’ with the word ‘influence’. I’m guessing you don’t object to other people having ‘influence’ over you nearly as strongly, which makes my entire comparison unfair. However, I’m not quite sure where someone stops exerting ‘influence’ and when they start trying to exert ‘control’ (or maybe start trying to ‘obligate’ would be a better way of putting it?).

Ultimately I think one of the major factors in the ‘closeness’ of a relationship is the amount of influence each party is able to exert over the other. This is largely just another way of saying one of the major factors in ‘closeness’ is the ability of each party to communicate with the other. I don’t think one can reject all attempts to control without rejecting a non-negligible number of attempts to influence. I, personally, find it very difficult to be close to someone who flat out rejects a non-negligible number off my attempts to influence them for reasons I don’t really understand or value. I’m guessing that large portions of humanity find it similarly difficult, but again I’m relying on the assumption most people operate using qualitatively similar psychological processes.

Now, you go on to make a supporting argument about the importance of taking responsibility for your own desires that probably puts a huge dent in the convincing power of everything I’ve said up to this point. I am also quite attached to the ideal that people should take responsibility for their emotions and desires, so I would really prefer, on some level, that this point go unrefuted. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those ‘works well in theory, but has a tendency to break down in practice’ problems, mostly because it’s something of a perfectionist based system. Unfortunately, sometimes people aren’t capable (or simply won’t, if you prefer) of being responsible for their desires and emotions. Generally this seems to happen because they are under stress. And stonewalling them because they’re not taking responsibility is likely to make their stress worse, which would further undermine their ability to take responsibility. This could kind of process would probably lead to many proverbial ‘mountains’ being made out of molehills. Personally I think it’s unreasonable to ask for a world (or a relationship) without molehills of any kind, and I really would prefer to avoid those kind of mountains, if possible, so I think operating under the logical statement “if you don’t take responsibility for your emotions then I’m going to stonewall you” is bad policy. That’s just my opinion though.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-15 12:38 am UTC (link)
You know me so well. Yes, "obligate" is the key concept. If people need to be obligated to them in some way before they'll accept me, I'd rather they reject me. I think that's a much clearer way of stating what I was trying to say. I think it's actually that I simply dislike people who use guilt (or whatever you call the driving force behind obligations) or deceit for control. Other types of control I'm fine with -- for instance, convincing me of your views by giving me corroborating data is something I'm fine with, although it's just another way of influencing people.

I've typically believed that it's the opposite of a perfection-based system. But, the part I didn't elaborate upon, which makes it more obvious, is that I don't stonewall everyone who isn't perfectly acting as I'd like them to. I also don't merely stonewall them. The two flexible factors are that I only stonewall when it's become apparent that you simply aren't going to take responsibility for your own actions (not as a first response, usually), and I do attempt to explain both what gets stonewalled and what doesn't. I also stonewall to varying degrees, instead of in a "make-it-or-break-it" fashion.

I completely agree that, if I were to completely completely stonewall someone unless they took complete responsibility for their emotions, that would break down very quickly. There are always little fluctuations, even under the best of circumstances -- so I don't completely stonewall them unless they have a pattern of not taking any responsibility for their own emotions. In such a "nothing is budging" scenario, I also won't budge. This leads to consistent stonewalling and, most likely, a mutual disinterest in each other.

I strive to avoid perfection-based systems, instead preferring systems that lead to improvement over time. I try to act in a way that only makes mountains out of things that are already mountains, and treats molehills as molehills. That's not to say I succeed ... but it's what I try to do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]galith
2006-10-14 12:22 pm UTC (link)

There's even the arrogant bit about how if you learn how to deal with me, you'll be more able to play well with others in general -- which I truly believe, arrogant as it is.

I think this is definitely true. You are very good training for playing well with others. My only concern here is that the intensity of the training regime you offer might be a bit too harsh for many people, especially when they don’t feel they have any easy way to turn said training regime off when they feel they need a breather.

Also, I'm pretty sure this is a post would fall within the domain of "ethics", whether you like the label or not. Basically you are explaining (and defending) a particular way of living, and making an implicit argument that there is value in living that way. That’s ethics, or at least ‘descriptive ethics’ (to make up a term), at least in my way of understanding the world.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-15 02:08 am UTC (link)
Well, this post is, among other things, just another post-mortem rationalization that I use to feel better about myself, but I consider it to be of a different sort than ethics.

I draw a line between "why I act how I act" and "why you should act how you should act". I'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt my view, or my reasons, or my actions, or even that they're moral or right ... just trying to explain what they are, and explain why I find value in them. This, to me, differentiates it from what most people consider "ethics", as it's neither stating anything about the morality of actions nor about what anyone else should do.

If you still feel inclined to call that ethics -- and hey, the word means so many different things to so many different people, who am I to disagree? -- I just want to point out that it's a particularly amoral and non-obligated form of it, that isn't trying to convince anyone how to act. Or how they should act.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]goldfish42
2006-10-15 03:59 am UTC (link)
I once heard the difference between morals and ethics described as "how you think everyone should act" versus "how you think you yourself should act." When people ask if I am a "moral" person, I tend to squirm, because I don't like the implication that there is some "universal" standard, and I think many intelligent people feel the same. But holding yourself to a certain standard and having feelings about what is good behavior for yourself? That is different, no?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]zanfur
2006-10-19 06:38 am UTC (link)
I think it's very similar. If it's merely your own standard, then it's hardly a standard. If it can be labeled "good" then it's being measured against something ....

I do think there's a large difference between telling yourself how to think or act and telling others how to think or act.

I usually claim to be amoral (as opposed to immoral), but I find myself thinking the same things are good and bad as most other people: Murder is bad. Lying is bad. Helping people is good. Respecting people is good. Stealing is bad. Abortion is a tough one. Death penalty is a tough one. And so on. There are some distinct differences when you start getting into the lifestyle choices, because I don't think homosexuality or polyamory is bad (among other, varied things deviating from the straight and narrow). But, by and large, I hold the same values about how to treat your fellow man as most "moral" people do.

This means that if someone is asking me if I agree with their morals, the answer is most likely a qualified "yes". But, if someone is asking me if I agree that their morals are inviolate, the answer is an unqualified "no" -- I just don't think there's anything to be gained by hard and fast rules. Sometimes murder is good. Sometimes lying is good. Sometimes helping people is bad. Sometimes respecting people is bad. Sometimes stealing is good. Just, not usually. I think this means that I'm not a moral person, as I'm not rules by my mores. Or it means I am a moral person, because I have the mores in the first place. Take your pick. It's just another way of rationalizing actions, after all, and not really related to why people do things, just their justifications. I choose to think that I have better ways of justifying my actions than to pick them from a list of morally acceptable actions.

I hope I answered your question ...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…