Today is not based off of any single video as I did a ton of reading. But one particular topic (Trust) did seem like it would hold some insight into what helps relationships become successful. The speaker in the talk below proposed the "Four Horsemen" which spell the end of any relationship. He has some clinical research to backup what he says, but a short list of these common traits are below:
criticism
contempt -
defensiveness - rather than seeing what the other person is saying
stonewalling (withdrawing) - not participating in conversation
In the talk below he talks about the importance of trust.Trust is more than doing what you say, that is simply reliability. It is an emotional state that arises from the perception (or belief) of shared values. It isn't even necessarily deterred by betrayal. We can still trust people who hurt us (while we might not trust someone who has always done what they said, because of something as simple as the way they dress). Trust fades when we start telling ourselves "I can do better. I don't need this." This leads to resentment instead of gratitude and withdrawal rather than investment.I think this lesson is true for conversations and jobs as it is for marriages. In a separate talk he lists three ideas
Obviously, the opposite of pulling away is being available, or attuned to what the other person is saying. Here is an acrostic which highlights the salient aspects of this process:
A - Awareness (pay attention)
T - Turning towards
T - Tolerance (of other viewpoints)
U - Understanding -
N - Nondefensive responses
E - Empathy
He also highlights that the key to good relationships is the ability to repair, the inevitable poor interactions. Interestingly, the ability to repair depends more on the recipient than the delivery or the person. He discovered that this had a lot to do with the quality of the friendship and the understanding of the psychological makeup of the other participant. Next we need to praise the other person rather than highlighting what they do wrong.
This leads me to believe that the best way to speak to people is to build bonds and develop friendship - in short first establish common ground. It lets me know that my oft-practiced habit of diving straight to the heart of a friend of strangers or difference's is not he best approach. I want to measure wits, but this is a useless endeavor without first sharing what I believe.
In general, I think marriage talks (which often a little light on science) might offer some of the best insights into how to improve my relationships with others. There is a much bigger market for salvaging and improving marriage than their is for those interested in "non-violent" communication. I can focus on the higher quality (and more research based talks) and hopefully learn something about human nature along the way.
I haven't posted much lately, but I have still been learning. This past weekend I participated in a series of interfaith events which brought me my first experiences with Baha'i and Sikism. I also incidentally read about Manicheaism after someone name dropped it in an article.
Sikhism emerged at the borders of Islam and Hinduism and did a good job of synthesizing the better qualities of each and sought (similar to what MLK Jr. and Ghandi would later do) to reform the broken societies in which they existed. I wrote a while ago about how I saw Jesus as a reformer of a broken system of Judaism more than anything else. The purpose was not the elaborate system of food, prayers or scripture, but simply a desire to love your neighbor as yourself. Martin Luther did the same thing 1500 years later as he broke away from the Catholic church. It appears throughout history, that new religions have risen out of a desire to transform local culture and promote the "better angels of our nature." After centuries miracles and other supernatural tales are often added - often added and in a desire to compete with the equally lofty claims of other faiths. Repeatedly, subsequent leaders often add rigid rules about food, clothing and other rituals also seem to emerge - even when the original leaders disavowed the need for these rules. These additional practices seem more like perversions (and misplaced faith and purpose) and are generally unrelated to the central messages of most faiths. I guess that isn't a new revelation, but I was surprised to see the similar patterns elsewhere around the world.
Monday, January 21, 2013
I failed. I had a wonderful chance to listen tonight and all I did was blab and blab. I offered lots of nice ideas but I didn't give the other person a chance to talk freely.
“There is a place out beyond the fields of rightdoing and wrongdoing. I will meet you there”
This talk goes along with with my reading of the Righteous Mind, and 12 Steps to a Compassionate Life as well the recent talk on listening. It encourages listeners to take the time to listen to (more specifically share a meal with) "the other" - those who we see as stark moral opposites. We live in sharply divided times and we have allowed our society to be split into different political/ideological teams. We have created walls, and demonized each other when this isn't really necessary or productive. It lends itself to arguing and division. This process of understand others is an exercising in withholding that judgment and seeking common ground. Below are some guideline she lays out.
Groundrules:
Don’t persuade, defend or interrupt
Be curious
Be conversational
Be real
Listen
Guidelines
Share some of your life experiences
What issues deeply concern you
What have you always wanted to ask someone from the “other side”
It's also generally good advice for understanding other people. One of my favorite things about the UU Compassion class was that we were required to have lunch with one other person each month. I learned so much from those meetings. We avoided politics and talked about our fears as friends.
Thinking about this makes me want to quit watching the news, to quit reading Facebook. I am just arming myself with talking points for "my team" and find myself getting irritated when people post inflammatory comments. It's not a good platform for building friendships.
In any case, I tend to be too antagonistic and her ground rules are a good start to "domesticate" my speech.
The speaker of this talks about a period where he was feeling in a rut (I can relate) and this seemed like the perfect way to spice his life up. It's also a good way to add things to our lives as 30 days seems to be about the right amount of time to build a new habit (or subtract one for that matter). Two I liked that he mentioned are writing a novel in thirty days or riding to bike every day. He shares three main benefits:
Life is more memorable. These challenges mark time very well.
Increased self-confidence. You begin to believe in your own abilities
More open to new experiences/challenges.
It's a very short video (only three minutes), but it does offer a few insights. The first being that small changes can add up to big differences. While some habits can actually become permanent, very difficult ones tend to be simple tests of will. This might mean that smaller challenges might have a larger impact as they are much more likely to alter behavior for years instead of days. It's also a good way to convince myself to do something. I think I often feel the pressure to either give up things forever or not bother. This "test drive" tends to be much easier to accomplish. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend last week about fasting. He said he actually went 10 days without food and probably could have gone longer had he promised himself beforehand. HOWEVER had he promised to go much longer, he likely would not have been able to convince himself to start. Now he knows what he is capable of (and is much more likely to try shorter fasts in the future).
Action Items
First Challenge: No sex for thirty days. This will start today and appropriately end on Valentines day. I guess this means more time for TED talks!
Second Challenge: No alcohol for thirty days. I will start on Valentine's day and end, very appropriately on Saint Patrick's day.
I will share thoughts on this challenge as time passes. Right now, it seems like a very easy thing to promise, but I know that will change after a couple of weeks. It will be funny to watch myself squirm (and want to rationalize it away) as my own biology reminds me of the importance of this activity.
Also think about what areas I would like to change/improve in the coming weeks. There is no reason I can't run concurrent challenges as the two I listed above will actually provide MORE time to do other things.
Gratitude Log:
Free time at work (so I can do things like this). I was labeling this as boredom but since I have started using the time effectively, I am pretty happy I have it.
A boss that won't let my flaws go unnoticed which has the effect of keeping me in the good graces of others. If I were given to my own devices I would probably come in quite late and not do nearly as much work, but her disapproving glances and watchful eye over my shoulder keep me in line. I need to recognize the benefits of this and thank her for it, rather than being resentful and feeling like I am being micro-managed.
Not having credit. I recently closed all of my cards to get better rates so I can pay off and eliminate all of the bills. This means I can't lean on them like I would have in the past when bills/expenses periodically exceed income. It has forced me to not run up unnecessary debt without making any significant changes to my lifestyle. It has shown me that I don't really need credit and I should not give myself access to it in the future as it tends to be an unnecessary crutch. It was also nice to have, for the first time in my life, the perspective of not being able to get whatever I wanted. I honestly can't recall a period of my life where money has limited my ability to buy what I want (within reason).
This is a very short talk and the speaker offers several, straight forward recommendations on being better listeners...
Take three minutes for silence (or the quietest place available)
Listening to the different sources of sound in a given area (example - Cars, AC, birds, ect)
"Savoring" - enjoy mundane sounds (maybe even some ASMR!)
Change your "Listening Position" - interesting he says this is the most important but doesn't go into a lot of detail. By this he means to intentionally switch the role you assume in (and purpose of) conversation (for example become empathetic instead of critical). I found one of his older talks where he expands on this idea. One key distinction is "reductive vs. expansive" language. The former seeks to cull out everything that is not important while the later is more open-ended listening. I know I personally tend to do very little of the latter.
RASA
Receive (pay attention)
Appreciate (acknowledge what the other person is saying.)
Summarize ("So...", "Just to be clear...")
Ask Questions
Two weeks ago I felt as though my mind was building plaque. Even with my resolution to watch these videos, I began to feel as though I wasn't getting information from them. A friend suggested I write about them as well. What that required was listening. I then decided to implement them and target them at areas where I am weak. I then forced myself to go deeper. In a lot of ways I came up with my own version of RASA....
Be patient. Breathe. Relax. Don't be antsy to go to the next meeting. If you only have five minutes, that is fine, but don't worry about it (or rush) during the period of time you have allotted.
Drop mental distractions (Don't let other thoughts keep you from focusing... If you decided to spend time to be with someone (or do a particular activity), make sure you are focused on it exclusively. There are always other things to deal with but don't let them ruin the present.).
Seek to fully understand the speakers message (while withholding judgment - there will be time for this lately). Don't just passively absorb information. Try to clearly and articulately note what the speaker is saying. When I reflect on my time in college, I rarely referenced my notes, but the act of writing down key points was quite important. I think this probably has a lot to do with the limitations of working memory. During a lecture I can quickly glance down, and everything fits back into perspective. When I leave I am usually able to integrate the key points into what I already know about the world and recall it later.
Seek common ground - This ties in with the point above about changing ones "listening position" I tend to default to critical, especially in day to day situations. I challenge people's most deeply held beliefs. While this is fine (well, sometimes) it has the effect of separating me from people and their ideas. I need to continue to be active in finding the value when possible.
Challenge - this is easy for me (though I think less so for other people), since I think conflict usually (if we can avoid getting emotional) usually brings us to a better understanding of each others values.
Expand on the idea. Keep going with it and take it a few steps further. Draw new conclusions. his also makes me think I should consider doing additional research on the topics I encounter - I might watch several TED talks on similar issues or look for articles by the speaker on the same topic
Make the message a part of my life. Integrate what I learn into practice (if possible). It is too easy to sit around and listen but never make any positive changes, which after all, is the purpose.
Action item: Participate in"exploratory" listening at least once in the next 24 hours. Then write about it.
Here is another interesting article that discusses similar points.
quiet your inner voice (limit distractions/criticisms)
argue with yourself (take the opposing side of your initial impression)
stay curious (or at least pretend to be interested) - write down questions. Google them later
find the kernel of truth
focus on the message not the messenger (don't let the speaker put you off)
Today my friend and I biked around a forgotten little SC town called Winnsboro in Fairfield County, SC (1). The area boomed in the early 1900's when Cotton was a true cash crop. There was a large mill which employed many residents. Most of the employees (who's descendants are now in utter poverty) still live in the homes from that era.
Winnsboro has the skeleton of an early twentieth century town, with a main street, elegant churches, antebellum homes and grid like neighborhoods with tree-lined streets. The town is now mostly black, except for what remains of the "rich" section of town (columned mansions with large lots on a hill a few miles from the mill). In all, little has changed from a hundred years ago (2). Though even many of the formerly nice houses have fallen into the hands of the "lower" classes. There is something rather sad about seeing a once regal southern mansion in ruins. The worst example I saw was a huge two story brick home with two trailers in the back yard, several cars on blocks, trash all around, and a corner store out front.. It's like seeing a beautiful ex girlfriend as a prostitute. There is something beautiful just wasting away that nags at the soul. The dystopic visions of the future managed to generate a little anxiety and uneasiness within me. I guess in some ways, my own little project to turn my house into a home is a much smaller version of what I saw in that town. It was just a reminder that progress doesn't always win out, and that generational problems are not solved quickly, if at all. Maybe that's what sent that feeling to my stomach. There was small inklings of hope though. Main street had a few new stores (even a trendy looking little tea room), the old school was being restored and some guy who was running for mayor said they were trying to turn it into an art college, and there were a few homes that had been nicely renovated or were in the process of being renovated (overall the town had some really fantastic architecture). It was also kind of worrisome to see these elderly couples, who are now trapped in these streets of slow decay. No one seemed to be spared. It was just sad looking. The brown leaves and dead grass of winter didn't help much either. It's not that poor people are bad, it's just that poverty tends to make people more desperate and it only takes one or two rotten souls to strike fear and lather dread on the hearts of a small community. The vacant industrial sites tell the story of the town very well. The old mill has been re-purposed and turned into a tire factory, but there were several other massive buildings in town which were simply falling apart and rusting away - a Mack Truck plant, an auto parts manufacturers (probably collateral damage from the Mack Truck factory closure). Barbed wire covered these plants - asphalt gave way to dandelions and wild grasses. Apparently they were one of the larger employers in the area -- lured by tax subsidies but left as soon as they ran out. I don't blame them, they just wanted to make money. These types of projects just need better planning for the inevitable. In the jubilation over the prospect of a better life (and because of competition with other states) they might not have overlooked the necessary thought needed for an amicable separation. It seems like this would always be a problem with any town centered around a single, large employer. I guess that's why big cities can exist for a while. The departure of a single employer is not enough to derail a town as they depend on a variety of industry. Though this is one of the central problems I have with industrialization. This is the difference in the old South and a new, modern America. Boom and Bust. These dramatic, but temporary, increases in income that make the resulting return to poverty all the more painful. It is the story of Detroit and the rest of the rust belt, of Route 66. of Railroad towns and mill towns. Their fate was married to a single industry or business and when things changed, so did they. It is the story of Salley (with the once iconic Salley Manufacturing Outlet) and all the other textile and furniture manufacturers that peppered North and South Carolina. They are all but forgotten. Urbanization, industrialization, and specialization all require external capital infusions (via trade or direct investment). The jobs they create result in a larger, longer term supply of housing than is needed. They also support business that depend on the incomes of workers from these mega-employers. When these factories shutter, so do the communities. Foreclosures. Real estate prices fall. Schools wane as their tax bases weaken. The best residents flee. All for JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. I would argue that these unsustainable "economic development" projects are destabilizing. This is the reverse of Trickle-Down economics. If we are to continue these types of projects, we need to ensure that they are unwound in an orderly manner. As the TED Talk I posted this morning alluded to the difference in idleness and boredom, there is also a difference in not having a job and being "unemployed." A hundred years ago, it only meant you lacked luxuries, but it did not mean you suffered relative to your peers. Though the "old south" is regularly maligned for being a racist and provincial, it did offer something very valuable - a self-sustaining life. Even as recently as 1950, my dad and his parents lived this life. Though not entirely self-sufficient, it was stable. Barring drought, there wasn't much that was going to disrupt their lives. They had an out house, they grew a lot of their own food, they had a close-nit family. Even without modern medicine, many lived to be in their 80's and 90's. Aunt Pearlu was even over 100. They had a good life. Unfortunately many of the people living in Winnsboro do not. Sadly they live on small lots of land in small rotting homes. Though it all seems so unnecessary as just a mile or two from town there are thousands of acres of farmland. It just seems so perverse to have people piled on top of each other when they live next to wide open countryside. In future decades, I hope we can do a much better job of planning these developments so that they don't leave entire towns (and in come cases generations) trapped in decay. I guess I should also say that while my prognosis for the future is negative/uncertain I did have a good time exploring what was left of it. It certainly imparted me with a fresh reminder of the gratitude I should find in my own comfortable life. I also have tinge of regret that my peculiar form of tourism did not make more of an impact. All I bought was some fried chicken and a beer while I was in town.
___
(1) It occured to me that this
is probably one of the poorest counties in the state (excluding a few wealthy
areas around the nuclear power plants. Ironically I lived in Fairfield County,
CT when I worked at Bridgewater. It is one of the richest counties in the US.
It's a refrain we have all heard before: unplug and relax, but even though there might be some value in the statement, like anything that is repeated a hundred times, the underlying utility can be overlooked because of its seeming ordinariness.
The speaker did offer several unique insights though. The most important was that boredom is fundamentally a way of life. What is interesting though is that we are largely able to avoid it with our phones, computers and tablets. My routine was quite similar to the prototypical American she describes. I woke up, checked Facebook, email, and texts. I thought about going to the flea market but there wasn't enough time so I decided my talk of the day would be on boredom. My quest is to avoid it. In the same way that I seek to avoid unpleasant feelings,
Second, and more unique point, was that the word boredom is a modern creation which is inextricably linked to options. She talks about how the word did not enter usage until the latter half of the nineteenth century. Before that point in time, one was simply idle. Boredom is not simply having nothing to do, it is that the sheer availability of options makes the alternative of doing nothing particularly distressing.
I also liked her imagery. She talked about how our devices are like a backpack of small birds all screaming for food, demanding our attention - and that particular moment when the demands on these creatures exceeds our interest/ability/time to care for them. I can relate to that, especially when I am active on an online dating site. It begins to feel like work.
Obviously one underlying theme of Western society is productivity. The idea of "doing nothing" seems completely foreign and approaches the level of nonsense. I know I used to share in that hyper-logical view. Why stop for stillness when I could be learning/helping/earning money or just sleeping. I think this is particularly true about Meditation. As I watched her video, I began to think that it might in fact be too much for a society that no longer experiences boredom. Her video began to make me think of boredom as a bride to meditation. That instead of a meditation practice, maybe I should first have a boredom practice as preparation for meditation. Weaning myself off might be easier that way.
This talk was a reminder that in the midst of our modern, comfortable lives, we might benefit from seeking a little adversity (In the speaker's case, that involves a multi-week trek across the arctic carrying hundreds of pounds of food and fuel while enduring consistent sub-zero temperatures), he argues that only in these instances do we find real growth and suck the real "juice" of life.
The epic and "claim to fame" nature of his journeys (first person to walk across Antarctica), makes it seem like it is something to hang his hat on in old age. Though maybe it is just for pragmatic reasons to help generate a little extra income from sponsors, speaking engagements or future book/film rights. Seems like one wouldn't need such titles to motivate a true search for life.
Most interesting was that he says his adventures have laid waste to his relationships and bank account. He described his thirst for adventure as something a crack addict would experience. It's strange though how he says it so freely, as if he has accepted that it is worth the trade. I struggle with the balance. How to maintain a reasonable job with secure income and yet still have the freedom to explore. Education is the only path I have found that will enable that.
In any case, I can relate. I too have a burning ember of restlessness, but my approach has to been to piss on it every time it flares up and dares to become a real fire. I have for years wanted to wake up one morning and just walk for months on end until I feel like I never need to walk again. To leave all of this caged thinking and living behind. I am tired of my hampster like cube and dusty stone box I call a home. Though, at the same time I know all too well how good I have it. How comfortable my life is. Every time I go down this line of thinking, I turn to back to Ecclesiastes (and a little bit of science which suggests exercise, new experiences and good friends all lead to well being).
I know as I sit here in the comfort of a padded desk chair I see my own life wasting away. I need a challenge. I need to start pushing myself more. In 2010, I did a good many things and I certainly felt alive then. I keep telling myself the weather sucks, but honestly, I am just being a whiner. I have wanted to bike to Charleston for the longest time. There is nothing holding me back. I should be taking trips like that at least once a month. I complain about gas money or the cost of eating out, but I am just being lazy. Admittedly, this month was a little tight with Christmas and repairs around the house, but I am just sedating myself by not planning more regular smaller scale adventures.
Plan for the weekend: Leverage my social networks to take advantage of this flash of spring. Take Saturday and put in 30-60 miles on the bike exploring some small town and the rural countryside.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease.
--Sent-ts'an
I mentioned The Righteous Mind a good bit recently, and will probably continue to do so, but I have really enjoyed it. It's one of the most transformative texts I have encountered in some time. I think the quote above (which he listed in his presentation) is key. The point is to not make nihilists of us all, but to get us to disengage a tad and to try to understand each other. We live in a sharply divided world which polarizes us into opposing moral teams. This leads to bickering which stands in the way of progress.
Aside from his talk, I also want to focus on his delivery. In my mind, watching him speak has been just as interesting as reading his book. He has an uncanny way of making those who probably disagree with him feel comfortable nodding at the points he raises during his presentation.
I think it is clear by the end of his talk that he favors a more uniform distribution of the his five key values (harm, fairness, loyalty, authority and purity) which puts him much closer to most "conservatives" than liberals. Though, to watch his opening and to see his slides (where is labels most of the red states "dumbfuckistan" one might think he shares in the audience's disdain for Red America. Knowing this it seems as if he purposefully goes undercover to seem like he is part of the "liberal" team. I think this is a wise move. He knows his audience. In the talk he asks who is liberal and almost everyone raises their hand. In order to gain the trust he has to initially get the viewers to think he sees the world in the way they do if he hopes to change their mind. It's a very interesting tactic.
I also took the quiz mentioned in the video at www.yourmorals.org and my results are below in green.
Conservatives value these equally while liberals tend to view fairness and harm more than the last three. Surprisingly, my views exacerbate this trend valuing the first two the most and discounting the last three even more than a typical "liberal".
The good news, at least according to the odd word association test is that I am happy
Apparently I also tend to be a little tough on myself relative to others. It's also telling I see my own suffering as unique. That probably has a lot to do with my upbringing as an only child.
They have dozens of tests, but another surprising test was on relationships. Apparently I have quite high attachment anxiety. Though that isn't much of a surprise either given how past relationships have all ended through distance or infidelity.
I am generally pretty good at making a list of reasons for why I think something is true or why I (or my friends/co-workers) should take a particular course of action (which is why I like science and economics), but I am often quite poor at getting people to believe it's the right thing to do when it comes to moral and political issues. I used to scratch my head when my litany of responses would pierce their heart as well as wooden arrow shot at a stone wall. I have come to believe this is because I along with other people tend to stick our feet in and "defend what we believe in." - we protect our moral axioms. We all have a very strong aversion to "doing the wrong thing." This is even more apparently when we discuss this with another person in public (ahem, social media).
This is quite easy to illustrate. Most of us share the common principle that stealing is bad. We can formulate many reasons why it would be advantageous (the only negative being lack of social standing or criminal prosecution). However there are many situations we encounter on a daily basis where the probability of being "found out" is almost non-existent (for instance if a cashier fails to ring up an item as she bagged it in a store). Clearly it might be more logical (in this case financially advantageous) to keep quiet. Though we all likely share the value that this is a bad thing and the right thing to do is to point it out. No amount of reasoning will change our conscience. Morals are in large part immune to logic.
In order to do this, we need an emotional twist: enter Les Miserables. Now imagine this customer is living paycheck-to-paycheck, her husband left her and took everything of value, and she has three children. While we might still agree it is "wrong" to not speak up, though I think we might all be more understanding if she were to take this opportunity to claim a financial windfall (though the action is the same). The important part is that our indignation begins to melt away.
In short, like most people, I am not very interested in regularly challenging my morals (though that is slowly changing). If we do, someone must really pluck the strings of our heart.
This mean in order to be effective and relate to others, I have to turn inward and navigate the uncharted waters of "feelings(1)." It takes so much time to really identify what makes me uncomfortable about an issue. I feel like I am at the bottom of the ocean with a flashlight looking for a lost piece of jewelry.
The specific challenge for today (2), involves a small change at the local UU church I attend. I am on the worship committe (which determines the layout of the service) and they want to modify the welcome to explicitly include LGBTQ people.
My initial response was no, why are you doing this!? Why are we favoring a special group when other disadvantaged groups suffer equally large indignities (the mentally ill, the homeless, poor urban minorities, recent immigrants)? Why does sexual preference have any place in the pulpit? This is a social issue, not one related to the spirit (or our seven principles). It seems more like a warning (or litmus test) for anyone who wants to be a member than an invitation to people who will likely already know what they are getting themselves into. Also, why use the politically-charged acronym when the much more accurate and neutral phrase, "sexual preference and gender identity" would suffice? This seems like another case of the UU adopting the political cause de jour (almost always of Democrats), which is something that has always irritated me about our congregation and nationally. To be clear, I think all of these are very valid reasons. HOWEVER....
It took a while to realize what was really bothering me because I didn't see any immediate problem with being welcoming because I have plenty of gay friends and even lived with gay people in the past. I knew I didn't have any personal angst directed homosexuality.Though when I just paused and said each word, I realized I did have a response to the words lesbian and transvestite. It make my neck tense, my fist clench and I didn't like it. When I paused and said each word, I was able to see the mental clash of ideologies. My past experiences with cantankerous lesbians immediately popped up and I realized this had shaped my opinion of the acronym. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on those moments. I remember a few instances very clearly. I felt like those women in particular had said unnecessarily cruel things and created problems with friends where there had not been any. Their hated of all things male was palpable. Most of the time my experiences with lesbians have felt like power struggles and it was if my moral core was being drug against sandpaper.
What this helped me to realize was that this was my problem. This experience provided an opportunity to see the other side (rather than engaging in self indulgent confirmation bias [Google makes it really easy to get a fat stack of arguments in a hurry]). I read a few blogs to get a little insight. It turns out abuse is quite common in the lesbian community (not saying this is a prerequisite). Add in the all to common narrative of an absent (or just mean/neglectful) father and it's easy to see why this tough-girl persona persists. It doesn't make how I was treated "right", but as in the case of the lady at the grocery store above, it does make it a little easier for me to understand - essentially my initial response of indignation goes away and I can engage my friends in honest discourse.
The point of all of this is that I realized I have an initial aversion to the words (and the acronym too) and I imagine others might too. In order to convey this I need to relate this point to some of the emotional responses they brought up. The main one was that this group has been ostracized from churches and have been told they are going to hell. I can relate to feeling left out and so can many others who no longer see evangelical churches as a source of positive change.
My underlying goal is to help them remember we are (whether they like it or not) in a very conservative area. As much as they want to reach out, they also need to be cognizant of others who have grown up here. This doesn't mean we need to break with our values. It just means that the gulf between "what we do and say" and "traditional churches" is not so great that someone who is tired with the later (and looking for a new place to call home) also does not feel unwelcome. They need to balance reaching out to one group with the competing values, history and experiences (which will be a life lived in the South) of the other.
The other point they made is that LGBTQ people are social pariahs. I think this also applies to people who are truly trying to find their own path. Most churches (the Quakers being a notable exception) do not tolerate variance in belief. When these differences emerge, debate is not a real option (3). This forces people out of the church and out of the community they were a part of. This is a really lonely place. However, to someone who still holds on to many of their Christian views, the UU is quickly becoming an uninviting place. There are many who are outright (and disproportionately) hostile to certain segments Christianity (the minister included). It is not hard to imagine that a newcomer (with no friends here) might feel he is not welcome. Add in the unfamiliarity of LGBTQ pride and it might be too big a social gulf. I want to make sure someone who is in that likely situation can feel at home too. I think its important to remember that neither side is wrong, we just have different histories.
The UU is supposed to be a place for people who want to find their own path - I want to make sure it stays that way.
________
Today's TED talk (2) was: Common Threats and Common Ground. It reminded me again that in order to seek change we must seek to see the other side. Another way to do this is to unite around a common threat. I think it is a very valuable less.
_______
(1) On the Myers-Briggs chart I am a very strong T (loosening up a little with age) and it shows. (2) Lately I have been watching one TED talk per day. There was no particular focus, just clicked until I found something that looked interesting. I want to start selecting videos that help me address a particular challenge I am facing or something that has been weighing on my soul. It will also force me to identify areas where I would like to improve which means I will be more likely to apply what I learn. I also think I am going to start looking beyond TED. It is a good resource (importantly, with a known level of quality), but given the nearly ceaseless variety of information online, I think it makes more sense to use this time to find videos which tactically address the specific problems I face each day. (3)The pastor is typically the charismatic leader and the congregation is a representation of his values (this is also a risk at UU churches with permanent members). The ministers attract the types of people who agree with them and those who don't simply leave. It's very self-reinforcing. Definitely not a formula for a dynamic and reflective congregation.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Note to self: If someone asks me what have I been up to, and I don't have any response that is exciting to share, let that be a slap in the face that I am wasting my life. The ability to share ideas and energy with a smile on my face and in the rapid cadence which has been a hallmark of my speech, is a sure sign of progress.
For the past few months when people asked me "What have you been up to?" I'd feverishly flip through my mental calendar hoping something notable might pop out. Lately I have had nothing to share other than "working, going to the gym, watching interesting films." That changes now.....
Gratitude:
That I am able to instantly read the perspectives of people I disagree with in order to better understand their lives and their motivations
That distance does not separate me from my friends
That I have people in my life who are enough to talk to me and point out when I might be mistaken - that they care enough to spend the time helping me sort out my own troubles
"I write because I don't know what I think until I read what I say"
My grandmother’s mind did not age gracefully. I am not sure
if it was the result of a painful divorce and subsequent isolation or a genetic
predisposition but it wasn’t
pretty to watch. She would rattle on, she was officious, and she would
often respond quite emotionally and give these mini-finger pointing lectures.
In short, she was difficult to be around. She was still a loving person, but
something had changed with age. She never devolved into a state where she was
dependent on others, but I think with time that certainly would have happened. My
mom has started showing the basic signs of this and it scares me. She is still
pleasant, but I do wonder what will happen in 10 or 20 years. I also see the
same signs in myself. I am absent-minded. I feel disengaged. I don’t focus. I
feel like my mind is slowly getting hazy. It all makes me a little nervous,
especially since I base so much of my identity and happiness on my ability to
learn and discuss with others.
In this talk, Alanna Shaikh talks about her father’s Alzheimer
disease. She says we typically have two responses: denial or believe we will
cure it. She says we should have a third option – prepare for it. She says she
is doing everything she can to prevent onset: exercise, a good diet, and
keeping her mind active, but that “if the monster wants you, it will get you.”
There is nothing that can 100% prevent the disease.
Here are her three steps to get ready:
Change what she does for fun
Work on building up her physical strength
Trying to become a better person
Hobbies: When you get dementia it becomes harder and harder
to enjoy yourself. You can’t sit and have long talks with friends, watch
television or read. She says it has been difficult to find things for her
father to do and feel happy. She has resorted to letting her father fill out
forms as he would have during his days as a college professor. As preparation she
has started folding origami and started to knit. She feels it is important to
have things to do that can keep you occupied and make it easier for caregivers
to watch.
Physical Strength: She has started yoga and tai chi to
maintain balance. She says most people do not realize that Alzheimer’s has a
physical element. People lose muscle tone and balance. She hopes to make these
aspects second nature. If she succeeds it will make it easier for people to care for her.
Being a better person today: She says her father has always
been a kind man, and even though all his faculties are gone, his ”naked heart”
still shines through. That alone has made it easier for her and her family to
care for him. More importantly, if it doesn’t happen before onset, she won’t
have time to change later. At the UU there is an old lady that comes, who is in
her nineties. Her mind is gone and she only has a few stories, that she will
repeat on loop. However, her happiness and smile have not gone. I always speak
with her when I see her and let her tell them to me. She is always so animated
and happy when she does. She seems happier than a lot of people who still have all
of their faculties.
This story is a nice union of the two adages "Do not do tomorrow what you can do today" and "Tomorrow is never promised"
I think the gratitude log and TED talks are a good idea, but I don't feel like I am devoting enough thought into them. I get the initial "click" when I hear the idea, but I am not running with it. In my mind, it's similar to looking through an out-of-focus microscope, seeing the blur, and then having someone turn the focus knob and bring into clarity what I was looking at. I like the "A ha!" moment, but I am just dictating what they say and adding in whatever immediate responses I have. It feels like vomiting on the page. I do not pause and reflect on what the speakers say. I need to be more thoughtful. I need more self-generated "A-ha" insights.
I also need to direct my gratitude at areas where I see difficulty or seem to naturally emanate negativity. I need to reprogram my associations with these people/institutions/ideas.I think this will offer a lot more benefit and make me genuinely more grateful. I need to seek out gratitude beyond those areas where it is immediately apparently.
This NPR article
talks about how little people expect to change throughout their lives. It discusses a recent study which
asked participants to rate how they were a decade ago, how they are now, and
how they might be a decade later. It seems, regardless of age, people
acknowledge significant change has occurred in the past ten years, but do not
expect it to occur for the next decade of their life. In short, they underestimate what will happen (if we trust those who are older).
I have always been amazed at how much I have changed
especially after moving to new jobs/schools/areas. New people (and the internet/social
networks) bring rapid change. The emotional intuition a new, intelligent and
trusted friend can share has the possibility to fundamentally change my view on
the world. With that noted, I am not
very attached to my current values (philosophical/religious/political/academic).
All of these fields have change dramatically over the centuries. Only a very deluded
mind would view the present moment as a unique period where we have somehow
discovered truth in these areas. We are a world in flux. Change is the only constant.
Personally, I want to change. I expect to change. I actively search for new
ideas and view it as one of the primary motivators for living – change is
essential to personal growth. Though, as much as I like it, it sure makes
planning for the distant future seem silly (and difficult). I think that might be account for why I have
such trouble with the idea of long-term relationships. Not only do I expect
change, I seek it out; while on average, it appears others expect life to stay relatively
the same (it would also be interesting to see if they viewed the prospect of
change positively or negatively.)
I would like to criticize the article a little bit. First is
the well-known bias associated with self-reported information. People tend to
be very inaccurate at personal assessment. I would also say that while I do
agree that ideological change has occurred, I am a bit skeptical that true
personality change has occurred (excluding emotional/physical trauma which does
change people). Maybe I am just a Myers-Briggs devotee, but the basic qualities
of people (for example, introversion v. extroversion) seem to remain relatively
constant. Yes, people might view the amount of change relative to their past
selves as dramatic, but on the scale of human diversity I think most people
would rate the same person very similarly ((for instance, I see myself as much
more calm but compared to the average American, I am still pretty
energetic/hyper on an absolute scale). I would also add that while I have seen
people go from religious zealots to raging atheists, I have not seen people go
from neat freaks to slobs or introverts to life of the party. Basic personality
preferences tend to have more stability. (Note to self about what I should seek
in relationships.). Lastly, it could be that the last ten years were rather unique as we shifted from a world of book-based knowledge to a world of digital, at-your-finger tips knowledge. It's possible this shift caused an anomaly for older generations that might not occur again, but I would expect it to persist into the future.
Anyway, I decided this would be a good topic for my “TED
talk of the day” so I typed in “TED talk aging” into YouTube and came across a presentation
by Jane Fonda on “Life’s Third Act.” The basic premise is that while we have
added 20-30 years to the expected adult lifespan (essentially an entire second
adulthood relative to a few generations ago) we have not put very much thought into
what we will do with this time. She argues that it is as different from midlife
as childhood.She also shares a new metaphor for the arc of life. The
traditional view is one of a steady climb into middle age and then the slow descent into old age and decrepitude.
Instead she says we should view life as a staircase. Age is not pathology - it
is potential. Obviously some portion of this period will be determined by
genetics, but the overwhelming majority is subject to our own decisions. She describes
this as an opportunity for “wholeness, authenticity and wisdom.”
I think this is true. I have a few shining examples in my
own life – friends who are happier, loving and finally at peace in their final
years. Through my own friendships over the years, I have seen the stark
differences in those who let their worlds shrink into nothing and those who “walk the
staircase” into their final years. These two contrasting images of our final
years offer hope for the future, and encourage rather than discourage.
She talks about her own journey and reflects on why she is
where she is. She says this was an opportunity for a “life review.” She talks about understanding the
impact her parents had and the impact her grandparents had on her parents - things she once viewed as hindrances she now views as part of what it means to
be human. I can relate to her story and feel that it mirrors a good bit of my
own journey over the past few years. The time I took for myself after Bridgewater was used in a similar manner and paid similar dividends.
She shares two stories – one of a man diagnosed with ALS and
another from an individual in a concentration camp. She talked about how these two people
used these circumstances to slip away gracefully rather than bitterly. A quote
I liked was “Everything can be taken away, except for how you choose to respond
to the situation you’re given.” How do we choose to relate to our reality?
To bring the conversation full circle, I wonder what this
means for modern marriages. I heard a comedian joke that went " When I look around and
see the relationships of most people I know that have been married for 20-30
years, I don’t say to myself 'I need to get me some of that.'” He continued – “when
marriage was invented, people lived to 30 or 40 years, now people live to 70,
80, 90. No one intended this to happen. I mean we doubled or tripled the length people are together. How about we
get the guys who invented this crap and see what they say. I don’t think they
would condone this monotonous torture.”
I don’t think it means marriage is impossible, but I do
think it means, if we are honest about what it really entails, it is actually a
more momentous decision than at any point in the institution's history. It’s a decision
to spend a extra lifetime together. Til death do us part is twice as important
as it’s ever been.
Gratitude log:
Grateful I live in an age where I can find
information and ideas simply by typing a few words into a search engine.
Grateful that I can sleep at night and not worry
about my own safety. I live in a society where random violence is not very
common and the vicissitudes of nature are all but eliminated (outside of
natural disasters which we can usually prepare for and run away from).
Grateful for people who want to help reduce the
mental suffering of others through talks like these.
I actually heard this guy a while ago as an undergraduate at USC. He is the editor of Skeptic magazine. This particular talk talk is about non-scientific beliefs and perceptions (which he somewhat combatively labels self-deception) and the science surrounding them.
Shermer says we are conditioned to be a little irrational
(Pavlov, Skinner, ect) and thus find patterns where they may not be any. From there, we make two kinds of
errors – we believe something is real when it’s not true (false positive) or
believe something is false when it’s actually true (false negative). These two
events are related. Often times false positives have little cost (you hear a
noise and see a predator, then in the future you instinctively run when you hear the same noise) while false negatives can have tremendous costs (you eat a berry, get sick, but then eat again later because you thought the water that day made you sick. Then you die because you gorged yourself on the berries). His claim is that
false positives kept us safe evolutionarily. Given their low cost, they don’t
often materially affect survival, so the default response is to generate
patterns - to be pattern seeking people.
He shows several slides of minimalistic images to demonstrate we can all see the same thing
if primed (faces in a cloud for example). He has many more examples. This portion of the video is
entertaining, but as he highlights later (but apparently forgets), visual processing occurs in a specific portion
of the brain and does not necessarily mean all of our other cognitive abilities
are suspect.
Other experiments showed severely degraded images and those individuals who most frequently identified an object were also the most likely (even though they were still inaccurate) to believe in the ESP. Increases
in dopamine also tend to result in more pattern finding behavior . He also
talked about how certain activities and electrical stimulation can produce out
of body experiences.
He did show some useless bomb-detecting
device that was sold to Iraqi government based on nice sounding words (but no
real science) that might have potentially cost human lives. However, outside of this example, I was
not able to see a compelling case for why it actually matters if people believe
dumb or incorrect things (he doesn't say that is his point - but his opening and tone certainly makes it seem like he is on a mission to rid the world of "inferior" thinking). I think he does give plenty of evidence to suggest
that many reported phenomena can be independently created, but again I see no
harm in seeking these pleasurable experiences out (even if they are incorrectly
labeling them as divine). Though I guess he has made me a little more skeptical.
On a related note I would like to ask him how is this any different that someone seeking out an adrenaline rush at
the expense of their own health – or even more so about the wasted resources used
in these pursuits that could be used to reduce physical suffering in the world. Is he equally outraged by this behavior? It seems clear to me have a right to pursue happiness in the way we see most enjoyable, even if it is misguided (so long as it doesn't harm anyone else).
In this talk, the fast talking and cheerful Shawn Achor begins by pointing out social
science’s obsession with “normal.” After taking a look at the DSM IV a few
years ago, it became clear that the goal was to classify as many things as
possible as psychological orders. When I began my own study of ADHD
I also discovered that the majority of psychologist had no interest in helping
those with ADHD harness their skills and find ways of using their odd cognition
to their benefit – the goal was to completely transform the way their brain
works through medication. They wanted people to be “normal.”
Achor argues that this obsession with the ”average” person
will lead to average performance. Instead we should be focusing on the outliers
(rather than eliminating them from our data pools) and finding out what makes
them so exceptional. The question should not be how fast does the average child
read, but how fast could a child
read.
He makes the case that the lens through which we view the
world shapes our reality. It has little to do with our external world. I
watched a documentary a few weeks ago called Happiness that came to exactly the same conclusion. Many studies have verified that above a certain income level, additional income brings little pleasure.
His first main
point is to de-link success and happiness. Success is not happiness. Each time
we succeed we simply move the goal post. He talks about how, after going to
Harvard, he saw students go from elation (after they were admitted) to quite pessimistic
(complaining about workload, feeling insecure after meeting other smart people,
ect).
Rather than happiness coming from what we have accomplished
he argues the opposite - that happiness actually breeds success. He highlights
the negative aspects of stress (which often come when we push ourselves too
hard) and their detrimental biological effects (ex. increases in cortisol). He
talks about the positive role dopamine plays in learning.
In order to improve our disposition he suggests several ideas
(and try to do them for at least three weeks so they become habit):
List three acts of gratitude
Journaling about positive life events
Exercise
Meditation (as a response to cultural ADHD/multi-tasking)
Random acts of kindness
Reflections:
In my little moleskin book I used to record moments that really made me happy. I enjoyed adding to that list. I should resurrect it. I saw on FB a buddy who wanted to do one random act of kindness each day. I should hold him accountable and share in his stories.
These things would be much more likely to happen with a little more structure in my life. I should at least add a few reminders to my phone so that I am reminded to do them on a regular basis.
Here is my positive experience for the day: I saw an old cobbler in the arcade mall along Main st. I didn't have any cash last week but made a note to go back. I got there, predictably, just before he closed today. He was an old black man, probably in his 60's. He said he had been there for 37 years. It was a small shop. About the size of a large walk in closet. You could tell he had been there for 37 years. It was kind of dark with a few incandescent bulbs. There was dust all over. It kind of reminded me of the inside of a shoe. It was very cozy and worn in. Anyway, I had a pair of nice loafers I'd purchased a while back from a thrift store and they needed a little attention. He began by rubbing them with an oil covered rag to restore the dry and somewhat cracked leather. He then added stain to the leather and a darker color to the edge of the soles. Next came the wax which he rubbed in to seal and protect them from the water and dirt they would ecounter. Finally he placed one of the shoes between his legs, pulled the rag over it taught and then buffed it in. Then came the boar's head brush to make the wax shine and glow. They were still a little dark from the oil when I left but that has already faded. All that for $3. I tipped him an extra dollar. I slid back into the loafers, wooden heels clicking down the marble hallways as I made my way back to the office.
Three things I am grateful for.
That I am able to work out. My co-worker injured his back and has been hobbling around on pain killers for 45 days. He said his muscles are starting to atrophy. He said his life was really starting to suck. I hope he gets better soon.
The weather isn't too bad here. I look out and still see blue skies, birds, some green leaves and no snow. I walked down Main St today.
That I have healthy, mostly white teeth. Last night I had an awful dream that my teeth had cracked and were falling out.
For the past few years I have really enjoyed TED talks. The
ideas presented there challenge me as much as anything else I have found. TED simply
started as an annual conference (now popping up in satellite cities – Columbia even has one)
which bring together speakers who are passionate about the three areas behind
the name: Technology, Engineering and Design - though recently they seem to be
heavy on social science and psychology (which I enjoy the most). Talks are
usually only about 15 minutes and usually feature a nice corresponding
presentation. Tt the moment there are over 1400 talks and I thought about making
a resolution to watch one every day (or at a minimum at least a few per week)
and then make a small write up about each one.
Here goes….
Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational has been challenging
the basic assumptions of classical economics for the past decade or so.
Primarily that we are logical, profit-maximizing machines. I have already seen
a few of his videos online and would recommend anyone check them out.
Here is a good example from his blog.
______
Dear Dan,
I live in a
quasi-urban area near Washington, D.C., don’t own a car and take the metro to
work. Near my home is a fleet of Zipcars (a car-sharing system starting at $8
an hour, including gas, insurance and up to 180 miles of driving in a day). If
I bought a car, the monthly costs alone (insurance, parking) would amount to
about $200; then there’s the purchase of the car, gas and tolls. For that money
I could regularly rent Zipcars.
So why don’t I? I
could go to different restaurants and entertainment. But each time I think of
doing this, I ask myself whether I want to spend the extra money to rent the
car and usually decide against it.
This issue comes up
the most with groceries. There’s a fantastic supermarket a quick drive away
that sells much better and cheaper produce than my local store. In the end, I
feel like I’m choosing between (1) overpaying at my local store and feeling
cheated and (2) going to the better store but also feeling cheated because I
spent $30 on a Zipcar to save that same amount on groceries. What do you
suggest?
—Michal
What you’re experiencing is a conflict between your
enjoyment of a better supermarket and your cost-benefit analysis. What’s
interesting is that if you bought a car, you’d spend much more money overall,
but on any given week you wouldn’t feel the pain of paying to get to the
supermarket. Because a car can be used for so many different purposes, no
single one will feel like the reason for the car, and you’d only focus on the
marginal cost of driving a few extra miles, despite the car’s overall expense
and inefficiency.
Instead, you could try calling Zipcar and offering to pay
them in advance for three hours of car use four times a month for a year. This
way you wouldn’t undergo a cost-benefit calculus for every visit to the
supermarket.
And if you can’t convince Zipcar to do this, how about
putting the money you’re saving by not having a car into a “Zipcar” bank account,
and linking the Zipcar use to the money you’re saving? And to make sure you use
this money for the Zipcar, commit to giving whatever’s left in that account at
the end of the year to a charity you hate.
______
In this video he talks about how we all cheat a little - our
own personal fudge factor. Essentially we cheat as much as we can get away
with. He also indicated his research suggests we tend to not cheat more or less
when the stakes increase or decrease. I simple timed experiment he asked
participants to answer as many simple but time consuming math problems they
could in the allotted time – for each correct answer they would get $1.
Typically the number was around 5 when they were verified by the researchers.
When they were asked to self-report the scores, this number rose to 7. When the
price per correct answer rose, cheating did not measurably increase over the
self-reported scores with a lower price per answer – essentially increased
reward did not correspond to increased risk of dishonesty. From there the
experiments only got more interesting. He found we also tend to cheat less when
reminded of morals (ie when we are asked to swear on the bible [which even
worked to keep atheists honest], sign an honor code. People tended to be honest
when they self-reported the number of Ten Commandments they could remember
relative to the math problems listed above.
He also suggested that we cheat more when we see others
cheating (at least if we view them as part of our group). The most interesting experiment
used paid actors in a research setting to clearly cheat. The experiment pre-paid
participants with an envelope of money and asked participants to complete a
series of questionnaires. After a few minutes the paid actor stood up, declared
he was finished and left. Interestingly (the study was conducted at Carnegie
Mellon) if he was wearing a CM sweatshirt cheating went up. However, if he was
wearing a sweatshirt from nearby Univ. of Pittsburgh, cheating actually went
down (at least the time devoted to completing the task).
Lastly he pointed out a huge disconnect between money and
money substitutes. His first experiment measured how long a pack of coke would
last in a common area refrigerator. He then placed six dollar bills on a plate
and left them in the fridge. None of the bills disappeared, all the cokes
vanished. In another math problem test
he found that when people self-reported significantly more correct answers when
they were paid in tokens. These short experiments have obvious implications for
theft and financial markets.
I appreciate how simple these experiments are. I do wonder
how “scientific” they are. How well the controls were designed? How much
variability is there between the different groups? How well do intelligent college students represent
society as a whole? I can guarantee those dollar bills wouldn’t last in the
homeless shelter down the street. What about other countries? In The Righteous Mind by Haidt in his book,
talked about how different other cultural groups are from those found here in
the US. It seems rather obvious to me that morality would vary by culture – I wonder
how it would alter the findings. It would also be interesting to see how age
and development would alter these findings. How honest would children be in
these experiments?
It would also be
interesting to conduct these experiments in real life settings. How much does
forced interaction with the researchers alter behavior? How would they
different if there was no fear of getting caught. Haidt also talked about how
people don’t really care about being truthful but they care very deeply about
the perception of their truthfulness. Ariely didn’t dive into this very much.
Also, given the relatively meaningless amount of money (a
few dollars to a college student) diminish the value of the experiments. How
would the results change if the values represented an entire paycheck or
someone who desperately needed the money?
All of the questions aside, his results do tend to mesh very
well with my own intuition and I enjoyed the video.
New years is always a good time to reflect on what has happened and what one wants to happen... Here'e my list.
Communication: I recently realized I was not very good at taking my ideas (which I felt were good) and convincing others of their merits. I have made it a bit of a hobby to understand what effective communication entails. I am trying to look at all fronts: body language, tone, the words we use, classical rhetorical tricks and the delicate balance between emotion and reason. I want to finish several books I have started on the subject, to note personal failures and successes in daily life. I want to be able to effectively show others what I really feel/think and to be able to persuade when necessary.
Mindfulness: My mind feels like it is rotting away. I am so absent-minded lately. I drift from task to task without much thought. I need purpose. I need to be deliberate. I need to devote conscious attention to the daily tasks I complete (even simple things like eating or cleaning). I don't want to leave the stove on and burn dinner. I don't want to leave the iron on all day. I don't want to miss exits when I drive down the interstate. My speech is lazy, I use sentence fragments, I slur words, I speak softly, I ramble and go on auto-pilot when I chat with others. None of these things really matter, but what they represent does matter to me. I lack awareness of the life I am living. I need to meditate more, breathe more. Get rid of unnecessary thoughts. Wake up. Open my eyes.
Work: Along those lines I need to find something more productive to do on a daily basis. Given the current absence of meaningful work, I cannot condone sitting at this desk for forty hours per week.It's probably the main reason I am so mindless. Teaching may be the answer. I finally got around to applying for substitute teaching jobs so that is a start, but not a solution. I don't know what I will ultimately do, but this just has to stop. I feel my days flipping away like the pages of an animated flip book. When at work I need to take more time during the day to break. Go back to reading and working out. Mix up the monotony. Have lunch with other co-workers.
Personal Development: Self-acceptance. Identify stale ideas that I still cling too. I need to start carrying around my little notebook more and writing more. Don't get so defensive and be less emotional when talking about ideas. Don't be a coward. Speak up. I need to read more. Books are so dense unlike most of the conversations I have on a daily basis. I need more ideas and less facts.
Passion: I need to find a project to work on so that I can keep my mind occupied in the mean time. I need something that can consume my faculties. I also need a companion who can challenge me. I had a lot of fun this year sowing wild oats (which was my intention), but now it's time for something a little more mature. I want to give back in my own way which I think means bring something sort of idea to life. I am not sure if it will be literature, a documentary film or home building but I need to stop wasting time on Facebook and silly dates.
Vanity: These are relatively pointless, but are also the easiest to accomplish. They are mainly done for social reasons... I want a more professional wardrobe. While clothes are always silly they help socially and pay for themselves many times over. Nothing fancy, just clothes that fit well and look nice. I also want whiter teeth. Lastly I want to spend the time to develop a body that anyone would say looks good. I only need to gain about 15 lbs. It's within my reach and there is no reason I shouldn't accomplish it. I want to keep working on my house to make it more comfortable. I want to keep working on the back yard and continue to make it a nice place to hang out.
Travel: Plan a big trip. I have to take two weeks off so I might as well make it interesting. Time to use those frequent flyer miles. Somewhere poor and tropical. Maybe Colombia. I have been talking about this for too long. Maybe I can coordinate something with my old buddy Rob.
Social: Keep finding interesting people. Host more couchsurfers. Go to more art and cultural events in town. Devote more time to interesting friends and less to pretty girls. When I do spend time with friends stop looking towards the next event or where you could be. Be with that person and be yourself. Learn something from them. Don't give them what they want to hear either. Be real. I play the chameleon too much. It is socially advantageous but not good for my own psyche.
Self discipline: I need more of it. I need to delay gratification. Set personal boundaries. Don't drink as much. Cut out unnecessary expenses.
-I need to pay closer attention to my own inability to be comfortable with myself. My need to always be doing something. If I want contentment I must face my restlessness, not continue to embrace it. The ability to be happy alone is a prerequisite for love. If this does not exist one runs the risk of a bond based on mutual need instead of love for another.
-I need to recognize the importance of "bad" company -- "Zombies." Those who's soul has long since died. Those who only chatter about trivialities. If discourse is unavoidable, respond with honesty and avoid cliche.
- Don't give advice without first listening. Don't ask for it without deeply listening either.
I was reading a thread on Quora that discussed the "most unfair advantages a person can have." The list included good looks, operating on less sleep, an optimistic disposition, ability to resist temptation, and lastly, good parents. That was good food for thought, but the commentor who provided the last item included the following quote which I thought was worth sharing and reflecting on: _____ "I wanted to emphasize other things necessary for well-being. Recently I've been thinking about this a lot after reading the practictioner's manual for Schema Therapy by Dr. Jeffrey Young.
Anyway, in a nutshell, the theory posits that as people, especially as children there are things we need and if these needs aren't met, we grow up incredibly mal-adjusted and if we get these things, well that's when we grow to be incredibly happy and able to solve our own problems efficiently.
(Sorry I know I am not doing the theory justice)
In a way, it's like Maslow's pyramid, but more on a clinical level.
These needs are: Safety, Stability, Nurturing, Attention, Acceptance, Praise, Empathy, Guidance, Protection, Validation of Feelings & Needs, Enforced Limits, etc
Notice that I didn't put Love as a need because the above needs together constitute love." _______
I thought it was a pretty good list of basic human needs. The emotional equivalent of the four food groups. Here is a good overview of the theory . The post encouraged me to reflect on where I might be a little warped as a result of my own past experiences (from all past relationships).
I found this particular paragraph pretty insightful:
""Rarely, a patient's personal perceived flaws may be intentionally with-held on the inside. When this occurs, instead of showing one's true self, the patient may appear to others as "egotistical", "attention-seeking", selfish, distant, and may exhibit behaviors unlike their true nature. In this mode, the patient might create a narcissistic alter-ego/persona in order to escape or hide the insecurity from others. Due to fear of rejection, of feeling disconnected from their true self and poor self-image, these patients (who truly desire companionship/affection) may end up pushing others away. This rare behavior can also be a self-soothing (yet unhealthy) self-therapy technique. It feeds the "abandoned child" delusion and becomes hazardous in the end."
It does make a lot of sense that we would seek to find whatever we lacked and that it might manifest itself in very warped ways as we grow older. Emotional trauma leads to self doubt. I can definitively say that past break ups have led me to doubt myself in key aspects of my personality. I know I initially wanted people to tell me that wasn't true but I would often engage in roundabout behavior (a simple way would be fishing for compliments) to get others to tell me it wasn't true. It takes a while to really reclaim any measure of confidence when the source is criticism or dismissal by someone I really care about.
More specifically I also tend to have attention seeking tendencies which are probably a result of growing up (essentially) as an only child in an rural area. On a somewhat related note, short list of girls I considered dating, all have good relationships with their parents. They tend to be very well adjusted and consequently I tend to be more stable as well. It would be nice to do that independently, a little more frequently.... I have also, mainly as a result of online dating I have had the opportunity to see all types of people (even if just a few dates) and these vignettes of people have really added to my conviction about the role that parenting plays in the development of a stable and happy human being. I know working on the relationship with my own father was a quite transformative experience (before & after). It just baffles me that I carried around that weight for 25 years needlessly, simply because I was afraid to talk about it. I'd also add that for a long time I showed love towards others in the same way my dad expressed his love towards me. I had simply shared the only form of love I'd known. That being said I always thought he showed it too infrequently, and when he did there was too much left unsaid. Glad we talk more now...
