humor
Richard Aleksandr
hate mail. What's the point? I implied that some people out
there were liars and wimps, and I got messages saying a was
an asshole, jerk, etc. etc.
Now we all know its easy to trade insults when you're not look-
ing someone in the eye, so I take all that shit with a grain of
salt. And so should you. Where's your sense of humor?
My whole point is this...this net is suffering from a certain
lack of manliness, and makes boring reading. (There was a great
message from Stella though, about horses and how they make good
vibrators. Now THAT'S interesting, and something I've always
wondered about). So, if you boys (and girls) don't start
writing short and interesting, I'm going to stop reading! and
that's my final word on the subject.
Sincerely,
Bird Dog
Elaine Richards
>Come on, guys. Lighten up willya? I don't appreciate getting
>hate mail. What's the point? I implied that some people out
>there were liars and wimps, and I got messages saying a was
>an asshole, jerk, etc. etc.
once a week, we don't need this abrasive attempt at "humor" on our
consoles. Read Twain and learn about real humor.
etc.
>wondered about). So, if you boys (and girls) don't start
>writing short and interesting, I'm going to stop reading! and
>that's my final word on the subject.
>
E
*****
"Get your facts first and then distort them as much as you want."
S. Clemens
Nadya M. Labib
>Come on, guys. Lighten up willya? I don't appreciate getting
>hate mail. What's the point? I implied that some people out
>there were liars and wimps, and I got messages saying a was
>an asshole, jerk, etc. etc.
>
>Now we all know its easy to trade insults when you're not look-
>ing someone in the eye, so I take all that shit with a grain of
>salt. And so should you. Where's your sense of humor?
>
What's so funny about insulting people?
>My whole point is this...this net is suffering from a certain
>lack of manliness, and makes boring reading. (There was a great
>message from Stella though, about horses and how they make good
>vibrators. Now THAT'S interesting, and something I've always
>wondered about). So, if you boys (and girls) don't start
>writing short and interesting, I'm going to stop reading! and
>that's my final word on the subject.
>
If you want that kind of shit, go buy a girly magazine. They write
about stuff like that. The net is supposed to be a place to communicate
with people on a specific subject. And net.flame was devised for
those of you who need to throw off some steam. Use it for it's purpose.
Nadya
Daniel R. Levy
>
>So, if you .... don't start
>writing short and interesting, I'm going to stop reading! and
>that's my final word on the subject.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bird Dog
Is that a PROMISE???????????????????????????
Are ya, are ya, ARE YA gonna stop posting too????????????????????????
--
------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are
| dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em-
| an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack.
| skokie, illinois |
-------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
P. Kirsch
the following paragraph isn't true but maybe it will satisfy your manly
needs...
I hope somebody can help me with my problem! You see I have this particular
little bitch who refuses to allow me to beat her with my twin bear cubs that
I just won for wrestling great white sharks. I know that my beatings haven't
been as good lately but I'm always so tired after lifting ten-ton boulders
at work. Does anyone know what to do with a stupid bitch like this??
--
Another wunnerful letter from the semi-intelligent rotting brain of:
Paul Kirsch
St. Joseph's University
Philadelphia, Pa
{ astrovax | allegra | bpa | burdvax } !sjuvax!kirsch
Warning: Objects in Terminal Room are Closer than they Appear...
Isaac Dimitrovsky
> Come on, guys. Lighten up willya? I don't appreciate getting
> hate mail. What's the point? I implied that some people out
> there were liars and wimps, and I got messages saying a was
> an asshole, jerk, etc. etc.
It's worth keeping something in mind when you write your notes:
they're going to be read by real people out there. They don't
disappear when you turn your computer off, see? And someday, you
might very well meet these people. Face to face. Get the picture?
Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 (212) 674-8652
... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine
driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ... - Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets
Nadya M. Labib
>[]
>> Come on, guys. Lighten up willya? I don't appreciate getting
>> hate mail. What's the point? I implied that some people out
>> there were liars and wimps, and I got messages saying a was
>> an asshole, jerk, etc. etc.
>
>It's worth keeping something in mind when you write your notes:
>they're going to be read by real people out there. They don't
>disappear when you turn your computer off, see? And someday, you
>might very well meet these people. Face to face. Get the picture?
>
Yeah, see...you shot my mother, see, and you are going to pay for it...
Claude Farmer
>>>>>
>>>>> Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---The Juicy Bananas(?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
Anyways, I agree with Bird Dog. The policy of honesty is best
when dealing with either sex and Bird Dog is merely being honest
though a bit obnoxious at times. Finally, "sensitive and caring"
is just another euphemism for lacking the backbone to be honest with
yourself (brutally if necessary) and others. Also, I think that
it is the 80's yuppie reaction to the macho boom of the 70s and is
to be avoided at all costs. Don't be macho or "sensitive", just be
f**king honest.
Honestly,
"Bullwinkle"
...!ihnp4!pur-ee!csd-gould!houligan!farmer
Laura Creighton
>
> Anyways, I agree with Bird Dog. The policy of honesty is best
> when dealing with either sex and Bird Dog is merely being honest
> though a bit obnoxious at times. Finally, "sensitive and caring"
> is just another euphemism for lacking the backbone to be honest with
> yourself (brutally if necessary) and others
I have been called insensitive a lot. After worrying about it a lot, I
have discovered that most of the people who have asked me to be sensitive
simply want to be left in their bullshit. But, unfortunately for me, there
is also another set of people who are not asking for dishonesty when they
accuse me of insensitivity.
The problem with me is that I have very little room for pity. Starving
Ethiopians, yes -- people I meet on the street, no. You either get my
respect or you do not, and if you do not I can't feel pity for you. If
I am going to go the effort of hating or scorning you I don't want to hide
out behind the socially acceptable word ``pity'' -- that too is dishonest.
This is, in my opinion again, a good thing. Unfortunately, when I rooted
out all hypocritical pity in the name of honesty, I managed to get rid of
some compassion as well.
But there is real compassion which holds no pity or dishonestry and is not
judging. I have had glimpses of it, and it is wonderful stuff. I know a few
people who appear to walk around with that level of compassion all the time.
They are not insensitive in the way that I am. So I think that while
``sensitive and caring == coward'' is a very good rule of thumb, it is not
the whole story.
--
Laura Creighton
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
Mark Terribile
> Anyways, I agree with Bird Dog. The policy of honesty is best
> when dealing with either sex and Bird Dog is merely being honest
> though a bit obnoxious at times. Finally, "sensitive and caring"
> is just another euphemism for lacking the backbone to be honest with
> yourself (brutally if necessary) and others. Also, I think that
> it is the 80's yuppie reaction to the macho boom of the 70s and is
> to be avoided at all costs. Don't be macho or "sensitive", just be
> f**king honest.
>
>
> Honestly,
>
> "Bullwinkle"
> ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!csd-gould!houligan!farmer
I am going to assume that you are serious.
`` `Sensitive and caring' is just another euphemism for lacking the
backbone to be honest with yourself and others'' ???
If your goal is to communicate, brutal honesty is not likely to
get a message across unless you are talking to someone who knows you well
enough to know when to take you absolutely seriously. If your goal is
to improve the lives of those around you, hurting feelings and refusing to
share hurts and sorrows, as well as joys, is only going to make enemies.
Brutal honesty:
You need to read ``How To Win Friends And Influence People''.
The author is Carnagie, Dale. You'll find it under self-
improvement at your local bookstore. By the way, you could
probably get a lot out of that section of the store.
There now, I've been brutally honest. Will that serve my goal of
convincing you that you're wrong? Will it make the world a better place?
Will it do ANYTHING useful, besides making me feel good while making both
of us look like damned jerks?
Tact and a little try at understanding:
Brutal honesty may not be the best way to get the honest
message across. As Dale Carnagie says, the only way to
get someone to do something is to arouse in him a WANT
to do it. And this includes believing you. Carnagie's
``How To Win Friends And Influence People'' talks about
how to do this, and how to get people working WITH you
so that you never have to be brutally honest -- ordinary
honesty is difficult enough to get right. By the way,
if it weren't for ``HTWFAIT'' your local bookstore probably
wouldn't HAVE a self-improvement section. The genre would
not exist if Dale Carnagie hadn't made a success of it.
And yes, you SHOULD read the book. If you're perfect and don't
need it, I'm sure the Carnagie estate would appreciate your hints for the
next revision of the book.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
David Longerbeam
> >
> > Anyways, I agree with Bird Dog. The policy of honesty is best
> > when dealing with either sex and Bird Dog is merely being honest
> > though a bit obnoxious at times. Finally, "sensitive and caring"
> > is just another euphemism for lacking the backbone to be honest with
> > yourself (brutally if necessary) and others
>
> I have been called insensitive a lot. After worrying about it a lot, I
> have discovered that most of the people who have asked me to be sensitive
> simply want to be left in their bullshit. But, unfortunately for me, there
> is also another set of people who are not asking for dishonesty when they
> accuse me of insensitivity.
.
.
>
> But there is real compassion which holds no pity or dishonestry and is not
> judging. I have had glimpses of it, and it is wonderful stuff. I know a few
> people who appear to walk around with that level of compassion all the time.
> They are not insensitive in the way that I am. So I think that while
> ``sensitive and caring == coward'' is a very good rule of thumb, it is not
> the whole story.
>
>
> --
> Laura Creighton
> sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
> l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
Laura, I applaud your efforts at honesty, but you are missing a very
important point. "Sensitive and Caring == coward????" Come on, Laura.
While I am familiar with the kind of sensitivity that is, in effect,
saying to the world, "I am sensitive, so you have to appreciate me and
take care of me because of my virtue and don't tell me any uncomfortable
truths about myself", you seem to be missing out on the kind of sensitivity
that says:
"I am sensitive to your suffering, knowing myself that
things get pretty rough at times, and while I will never
coddle you with sweet lies, I have compassion for you in
your "real" difficulties, and I have compassion for the suffering
brought on by your ignorance."
And then again, there is the kind of sensitivity and caring when
one has the COURAGE to reach out for other's help and sympathy,
but WITHOUT WANTING THE SWEET LIES. This kind of sensitivity exposes one's
heart to the world, and I maintain that this takes a lot of courage.
My rule of thumb, then, is:
Sensitive and caring is another word for very courageous,
as long as honesty is maintained.
Perhaps the distinction is possible because I believe that honesty,
when not contaminated with judgement, is very caring. Now, if I could
only practice what I preach more often!
Bullwinkle
No Mr. Terribile, Bullwinkle is not perfect!!! I am the first to admit
that and am quite able to live with it and still be happy while wrapped in this mortal coil.
I am glad that you gave me an intelligent response and I have read Mr.
Carnegie's book. The main purpose of my heavy-handed and overbearing assault
on the sensibilities of the net's users was to get them to think about their
attitudes towards other people. Personally, I do not try to harm people; I
only try to get them to be open with each other and to still maintain the int- tegrity of their beliefs while being open minded enough to accept the view-
points of others (I commend you on your ability to do so!!).
I feel that the problem we have at hand concerns a stereotype. That is,
the popular image of a "caring and sensitive" man. He cries when he makes
love, is horribly romantic, and has practically no spine (i.e. he is weak and indecisive). The first two attributes are nice and show humanity, whereas,
the third shows a person (male or female) who is not strong enough to take the
blows dealt them by life. This is an attribute I loath. In my eyes, a "caring
and sensitive" is one who is secure in his/her own beliefs and feelings yet
open enough to respect the beliefs and feelings of others (I sense that we are
in partial agreement here Mr. Terribile).
In conclusion to this long and somewhat rambling response (it's written
immediately after work!), I would like to once again thank Mr. Terribile for
his response and, hopefully, someone has woken up from sleep and started to
find a glimmer of light in their attitudes.
The saga continues. . .
Bullwinkle
...!ihnp4!pur-ee!csd-gould!houligan!farmer
P.S.--- As to the type of person I am, (if you are around me). I tend to be
cheerful (when I have some sleep), somewhat silly, and willing to lis-
ten (though admittedly opinionated). Some call me "weird"(no, only
a little strange).
--
-----
Bullwinkle
...!ihnp4!pur-ee!csd-gould!houligan!farmer
/
...!gould9
Isaac Dimitrovsky
> Anyways, I agree with Bird Dog. The policy of honesty is best
> when dealing with either sex and Bird Dog is merely being honest
> though a bit obnoxious at times. Finally, "sensitive and caring"
> is just another euphemism for lacking the backbone to be honest with
> yourself (brutally if necessary) and others
There's a difference between being honest and acting like a jerk.
Being honest = This newsgroup contains lots of discussions that I
find boring and pointless.
Acting like a jerk = You're all a bunch of whiners and losers
who wouldn't know what to do with a real woman if she fell in
your lap. Jeez, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time.
Isaac Dimitrovsky
allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1)
251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 (212) 674-8652
You know the great thing about tv? If something important happens anywhere at
all in the world, no matter what time of the day or night, you can always
change the channel - Jim Ignatowski
Pooh
Have you ever noticed how much "being honest" resembles
dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
(I can just see the wave of responses from the "pro-Choice,"
"self-actualized" group: "But I'm NOT responsible!" . . .
Q.E.D.)
Self-virtualized,
Pooh
topaz!unipress!pooh
topaz!unirot!pooh
Cute, cute
As a button;
Don't you wanna make him stay up late?
Laura Creighton
>
>Have you ever noticed how much "being honest" resembles
>dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
>
>(I can just see the wave of responses from the "pro-Choice,"
>"self-actualized" group: "But I'm NOT responsible!" . . .
> Q.E.D.)
>
that one, but I flunk your other test. Still, if I could only communicate
one thing to people it would be that they are not responsible for other
people's feelings. You are responsible for what you do, and they are
responsible for their feelings about it. You may come to an agreement whereby
they decide that they do not want to change their feelings and you decide
that you want to change your actions, but then ... you are still responsible
for what you do and they are still responsible for their feelings.
This business of ``I can't do anything about my feelings'' is false
helplessness. You *can* do something about your feelings. It may be a great
deal of work, adnd it may be something that you do not want to do, and all
that may be entirely fine --- but that means that you like your feelings
and reactions the way that they are now, not that you can't do anything
about them.
The business of ``you make me angry'' or ``you make me miserable'' and so
on comes from Guilt-Tripper's United -- we make 'em, we give them to you.
It is possible to live your life in an ever shrinking box because your
every action ``causes'' someone else to freak out and get upset. The way
out of the box is to discover that the freaking out is *not* caused by
you. At that point you can realise that you don't have to modify your
behaviour to suit everybody else's sensibilities -- you get to choose
what you do and they get to choose how they feel about it.
yours for less guilt,
Laura
Bruce Israel
>
>dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
Well I'll bite.
I agree that "being honest" can be used as a method of avoiding
responsibility for others' feelings (I won't address the issue on
whether we actually are responsible for them, since we've had this
discussion before and I think we are on the same general wavelength
but at odds over words and semantics). I don't see that happening a
whole lot, however. It's a lot easier to say things that people want
to hear and to avoid conflict in that fashion than to be honest with
people.
It really depends on what your goals are. If your goal is for them
to feel good in your interaction, then yes, be nice to them, sacrificing
honesty for your goals. If instead your goal is something else, for
example getting them to do something about their life, or to realize
something that will assist them in the future, then trying to avoid
hurting their feelings is not going to assist you in accomplishing
your goal, and in fact can get in the way of that.
There really are two issues here; what you say, and how you say it.
"What you say" is where honesty comes in, and "how you say it" is
what usually tends to hurt their feelings. This isn't necessarily
the case all the time, and obviously a communication (even an honest
one) that your listener doesn't want to face is a communication that
won't get received and is a communication that is better off not getting
delivered.
I personally consider honesty to be very important in communication, but
it doesn't have to be delivered in a harsh way (though its possible that
in some cases a harsh delivery could do more to have the communication
received than a kind delivery). For example, I thought "Bird Dog"s
communication on the content of net.singles was honest (for him), but
his delivery made him out to be an arrogant, insensitive <***>. If his
goal was to get attention and people angry and flaming at him, then
it succeeded. If it was to cause people to actually examine their lives
to see if what he said was true, and then to do something about it, then
I think it failed horribly, and his delivery got in the way of that.
My point is that, yes, people's feelings are important, but there are
other goals also involved that may not be compatible with making sure
that they are feeling good.
--
Bruce Israel
University of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
{rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel@Maryland (Arpanet)
Raymond Allen
>
>dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
>
>(I can just see the wave of responses from the "pro-Choice,"
>"self-actualized" group: "But I'm NOT responsible!" . . .
> Q.E.D.)
>
>
As a member of the "pro-Choice, self-actualized" group I
would INSIST that EVERYONE should have regard for the feelings of
others. It is none-the-less true that feelings are a personal
entity and you can change your feelings by understanding the
personal processes you have that cause them in the first place.
The point to this is that, if you want to say something to
someone else, phrase it in a simple, sincere manner giving due
respect to the emotional impact your words are likely to have.
Thus endeth the preach for today.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it." - Oscar Wilde
from "Parachutes & Kisses" by Erica Jong
Ray Allen
utcsri!ray
Pooh
>
> Well I'll bite.
>
> I agree that "being honest" can be used as a method of avoiding
> responsibility for others' feelings (I won't address the issue on
> whether we actually are responsible for them, since we've had this
> discussion before and I think we are on the same general wavelength
> but at odds over words and semantics). I don't see that happening a
> whole lot, however. It's a lot easier to say things that people want
> to hear and to avoid conflict in that fashion than to be honest with
> people.
>
> It really depends on what your goals are. If your goal is for them
> to feel good in your interaction, then yes, be nice to them, sacrificing
> honesty for your goals. If instead your goal is something else, for
> example getting them to do something about their life, or to realize
> something that will assist them in the future, then trying to avoid
> hurting their feelings is not going to assist you in accomplishing
> your goal, and in fact can get in the way of that.
First of all, thanks for "biting," Bruce. I can always count on
you for a good discussion.
I wouldn't agree, though, that it is always easier to say what
someone wants to hear. If you are deep down a person who prefers
to be honest, then it can be very difficult to say something you
don't mean but which nonetheless will be more polite, considerate,
whatever.
Going on to your next paragraph, where does one get off trying
to "get them to do something about their life"? It seems that
we have a very low tolerance for problems and failure in general,
and when you yourself have conquered most of your nasty beasts,
this tolerance can virtually approach nil. (I'm trying VERY hard
not to use the word "society" in this posting. . .:-) If someone
is letting, say, an irrational fear get in the way of asking for
a deserved promotion, who are you to say he should get over it?
Why not let him have his fear, and let him ask you for help in
defeating it when he's ready? In some seminar circles, I believe
the phrase is "letting him be in his shit." Personally, I find
this phrase a little more judgmental than it should be.
We all have problems, folks. This is not a bad thing.
What IS wrong (in my view) is that we often make a problem
out of having problems. If you're depressed, you spend as much
time and energy feeling guilty about it, trying to hide it from
friends so as not to make them uncomfortable, fighting it--in
short, being depressed about being depressed. If we could take
the social stigma away from these problems, I believe they would
be no more debilitating than a case of the flu.
I am flawed. I don't have perfect relationships with everyone.
I don't even particularly think highly of myself very often.
And it's ALL OKAY. I'm not okay, you're not okay--and that's
okay!
If someone wanted me to be honest with him and was asking me
for help with a problem, I would still try to put it as gently
as possible. Otherwise, I simply would opt for being as considerate
of his feelings as I could while being as honest as I could. (I
put them in that order for a reason.) This, to me, is called
manners. Why should we throw manners to the winds just because
we're intimate friends with someone?
> I personally consider honesty to be very important in communication, but
> it doesn't have to be delivered in a harsh way (though its possible that
> in some cases a harsh delivery could do more to have the communication
> received than a kind delivery). For example, I thought "Bird Dog"s
> communication on the content of net.singles was honest (for him), but
> his delivery made him out to be an arrogant, insensitive <***>. If his
> goal was to get attention and people angry and flaming at him, then
> it succeeded. If it was to cause people to actually examine their lives
> to see if what he said was true, and then to do something about it, then
> I think it failed horribly, and his delivery got in the way of that.
I find it very hard to believe that Bird Dog's posting was made
out of an altruistic wish to help each and every one of us find
happiness and fulfillment in a real relationship.
> My point is that, yes, people's feelings are important, but there are
> other goals also involved that may not be compatible with making sure
> that they are feeling good.
Just make sure you examine your goals.
Cheers,
Bruce Israel
>to "get them to do something about their life"? It seems that
>we have a very low tolerance for problems and failure in general,
>and when you yourself have conquered most of your nasty beasts,
>this tolerance can virtually approach nil. (I'm trying VERY hard
>not to use the word "society" in this posting. . .:-) If someone
>is letting, say, an irrational fear get in the way of asking for
>a deserved promotion, who are you to say he should get over it?
>Why not let him have his fear, and let him ask you for help in
>defeating it when he's ready?
This goes back to what I said in my posting about whether he is
receptive to my communication and assistance? If he isn't receptive,
then obviously I shouldn't assist him since it won't do anything
anyway except maybe get in the way of our relationship. If he is
receptive, though, shouldn't I help him out? Wouldn't I be a better
friend if I helped pull him out of his "shit", than if I just let him
sleep in it until he asked me for help?
Here's a hypothetical situation for you, Pooh. It was just my
birthday (last week, Nov 20th). I got a green vertically-striped
shirt that I just adore. On Nov 23rd I go to a your housewarming
party in NJ (sorry I couldn't actually make it) and decide to wear my
new shirt along with my favorite pair of red-plaid pants. (I don't
have the best sense of color-coordination, you see. :-) ) I make
quite an entrance to this party, and all eyes are on me. I revel in
this attention, but what I don't notice is that everyone is snickering
behind my back. You, being my friend, know that I don't mind being
laughed at if I'm clowning or joking around, but absolutely hate for
people to look down on me or to laugh at me otherwise. (It's really
true!! :-( ). Now, I haven't asked you for any help or advice (Of
course not; I don't realize that anything is wrong). Now remember,
you are my friend.
. . . Quick!!!! What do you do? . . .
You can either spare my feelings by keeping quiet, in which case I'll
probably wear my favorite new outfit all over the place. Or you can
tell me that it doesn't go together, at which time I'll get really
depressed that I made such a fool of myself in front of all these people.
Now, I don't claim to have an answer to this. I don't think its that
cut and dried a situation. Personally, I like my friends to be honest
enough with me to help me even if it hurts, so I'd prefer that you
cause me pain now and spare me much greater pain and embarrassment
later. But that is me. And my preferences. And if I'm not open to
your help (For example, if I find the embarrassment such a fearsome
alternative that I tell you that you're crazy and that the outfit
looks great; you're just jealous 'cause I'm attracting all these
stares from all these attractive women) then telling me would serve no
purpose and you shouldn't tell me.
>We all have problems, folks. This is not a bad thing.
>What IS wrong (in my view) is that we often make a problem
>out of having problems. If you're depressed, you spend as much
>time and energy feeling guilty about it, trying to hide it from
>friends so as not to make them uncomfortable, fighting it--in
>short, being depressed about being depressed. If we could take
>the social stigma away from these problems, I believe they would
>be no more debilitating than a case of the flu.
True. In the growth training circles I run around in, this is
referred to as "experiencing thru" an emotion rather than trying to
stuff it or work around it.
>If someone wanted me to be honest with him and was asking me
>for help with a problem, I would still try to put it as gently
>as possible. Otherwise, I simply would opt for being as considerate
>of his feelings as I could while being as honest as I could. (I
>put them in that order for a reason.) This, to me, is called
>manners. Why should we throw manners to the winds just because
>we're intimate friends with someone?
We shouldn't; but I also feel that we shouldn't make "being
considerate for another's feelings" be such a No. 1 priority that we
avoid solutions that would work better for the person we are helping
just because they conflict with 'manners'. For example, if yelling at
a friend "Goddammit, you fucking idiot, look at the mess you are
making of this situation!!!" gets him actually looking at what is
going on with an eye toward doing something about it more than "Excuse
me, but do you realize that you just ..." then I feel that the first
behaviour is warranted in that situation.
Again, as I said in my first posting, it depends on what your goals
are. And I do feel that being considerate for others' feelings can
and should be one of your goals in any communication. I just don't
think that its the only, or even the overriding goal, the way that you
do.
>I find it very hard to believe that Bird Dog's posting was made
>out of an altruistic wish to help each and every one of us find
>happiness and fulfillment in a real relationship.
Well, I don't really feel that he was being altruistic either, but he
was a good example for what I was saying.
>Just make sure you examine your goals.
Oh, absolutely! After all, whenever we do any communication at all,
we have goals in mind (though sometimes we don't recognize consciously
what they are). If you know what your goals in any communication are,
then your communication will be much clearer and purposeful.
Pooh
>
> receptive to my communication and assistance? If he isn't receptive,
> then obviously I shouldn't assist him since it won't do anything
> anyway except maybe get in the way of our relationship. If he is
> receptive, though, shouldn't I help him out? Wouldn't I be a better
> friend if I helped pull him out of his "shit", than if I just let him
> sleep in it until he asked me for help?
My answer is: no. You would be a better friend by minding your own
business and letting HIM decide when he wanted help.
> Here's a hypothetical situation for you, Pooh.
> I make
> quite an entrance to this party, and all eyes are on me. I revel in
> this attention, but what I don't notice is that everyone is snickering
> behind my back. You, being my friend, know that I don't mind being
> laughed at if I'm clowning or joking around, but absolutely hate for
> people to look down on me or to laugh at me otherwise. (It's really
> true!! :-( ). Now, I haven't asked you for any help or advice (Of
> course not; I don't realize that anything is wrong). Now remember,
> you are my friend.
>
> . . . Quick!!!! What do you do? . . .
I ask the other people, in private, to stop laughing at you.
This lets you wear your combination if it pleases you, and still
lets me do something to keep your dignity. Otherwise, I would let
you wear whatever you liked, and if you found that you didn't like
being laughed at, you could ask me if I knew why, and I would tell
you.
> You can either spare my feelings by keeping quiet, in which case I'll
> probably wear my favorite new outfit all over the place. Or you can
> tell me that it doesn't go together, at which time I'll get really
> depressed that I made such a fool of myself in front of all these people.
Or I can do what I can to spare your feelings, and at the same time
not make judgements about what you should or shouldn't be wearing.
> We shouldn't; but I also feel that we shouldn't make "being
> considerate for another's feelings" be such a No. 1 priority that we
> avoid solutions that would work better for the person we are helping
> just because they conflict with 'manners'. For example, if yelling at
> a friend "Goddammit, you fucking idiot, look at the mess you are
> making of this situation!!!" gets him actually looking at what is
> going on with an eye toward doing something about it more than "Excuse
> me, but do you realize that you just ..." then I feel that the first
> behaviour is warranted in that situation.
Again, I ask: why? Why should we take it on ourselves to tell
someone that he's "fucking up" a situation? Why don't we let him
have the dignity of finding it out himself and deciding for himself
whether he's making a mistake?
Pooh topaz!unipress!pooh
topaz!unirot!pooh
When you've seen one indoor shopping facility, you've seen
the mall.
(K^2)
Andy Cohill
In article <2...@unirot.UUCP> po...@unirot.UUCP (Pooh) writes:
> Have you ever noticed how much "being honest" resembles
> dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
Sheesh!! Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave...
Another way to put this is:
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you...
Andy Cohill
Cloyd Goodrum
>
>This business of ``I can't do anything about my feelings'' is false
>helplessness. You *can* do something about your feelings. It may be a great
>deal of work, adnd it may be something that you do not want to do, and all
>that may be entirely fine --- but that means that you like your feelings
>and reactions the way that they are now, not that you can't do anything
>about them.
>
This is partially true. When this discussion about being responsible
for one's emotions was going on (and on and on :-) before, there was one
very important point that was not brought up. It's been my experience that
you can't do a lot about your emotions by trying to do something about them.
It's a lot like trying not to think about elephants. If someone tells you not
to think about elephants, all you're going to be thinking about is elephants
and how you're not supposed to think about them.
Likewise, if you keep thinking "I shouldn't be depressed" or "I've
got to stop being angry", more likely than not you'll think about your
depression or anger and whatever is causing it.
So what do you do?? I've never found a better solution than just
waiting. And while you're waiting, you should try not to nurse your negative
emotion. That IS something you can take responsibility for. Instead of thinking
about whatever's bothering you, think about C code or Elizabethan history
or your favorite aunt or anything else you find interesting. You can't think
about two things at once.
>The business of ``you make me angry'' or ``you make me miserable'' and so
>on comes from Guilt-Tripper's United -- we make 'em, we give them to you.
Good point. If you can't do anything about your emotions, you can
choose not to heap a lot of blame and guilt on whoever hurt you. People
seldom wrong you as badly as you think they did, and giving a person a lot
of grief usually makes them want to hurt you more.
>It is possible to live your life in an ever shrinking box because your
>every action ``causes'' someone else to freak out and get upset. The way
>out of the box is to discover that the freaking out is *not* caused by
>you. At that point you can realise that you don't have to modify your
>behaviour to suit everybody else's sensibilities -- you get to choose
>what you do and they get to choose how they feel about it.
>
This applies a lot of times, but not all the time. You've just got
to use a little sense. If you constantly belittle someone or make cutting
remarks about their B.O and black stubby teeth :-) you've got to assume
they're going to get upset. On the other hand (and I assume this is what
you're talking about) some people are so hypersensitive that you can't
say ANYTHING without offending them. If you allow them to "put you in an
ever shrinking box" you'll just hurt yourself without helping them to
get over their hypersensitivity. Like you said:
> you are still responsible
>for what you do and they are still responsible for their feelings.
>yours for less guilt,
>Laura
>
>--
>Laura Creighton
>sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
>l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
Guiltily yours,
Cloyd Goodrum III
Roger L. Long
> When this discussion about being responsible
>for one's emotions was going on (and on and on :-) before, there was one
>very important point that was not brought up. It's been my experience that
>you can't do a lot about your emotions by trying to do something about them.
>It's a lot like trying not to think about elephants. If someone tells you not
>to think about elephants, all you're going to be thinking about is elephants
>and how you're not supposed to think about them.
> Likewise, if you keep thinking "I shouldn't be depressed" or "I've
>got to stop being angry", more likely than not you'll think about your
>depression or anger and whatever is causing it.
> So what do you do?? I've never found a better solution than just
>waiting. And while you're waiting, you should try not to nurse your negative
>emotion. That IS something you can take responsibility for. Instead of thinking
>about whatever's bothering you, think about C code or Elizabethan history
>or your favorite aunt or anything else you find interesting. You can't think
>about two things at once.
I've avoided reading net.singles for awhile, so I missed the discussion on
being responsible for one's own emotions. But to suggest that you will feel
better by thinking about something else is *not* accepting responsibility
for your emotions.
In the LifeSpring trainings, you are taught that "What you resist, persists."
Resisting your emotions by thinking about pink elephants doesn't make them
go away. When you get done thinking about pink elephants, they'll be back.
You really need to get that it is your *choice* to feel depressed, or angry,
or whatever. And that you can choose to feel great if you want to.
But since there's already been discussion about all of this, I won't go into
it any further. Other than to say that it really works.
--
Roger L. Long
FileNet Corp
trwrb!felix!bytebug
Laura Creighton
>
>for one's emotions was going on (and on and on :-) before, there was one
>very important point that was not brought up. It's been my experience that
>you can't do a lot about your emotions by trying to do something about them.
>It's a lot like trying not to think about elephants. If someone tells you not
>to think about elephants, all you're going to be thinking about is elephants
>and how you're not supposed to think about them.
> Likewise, if you keep thinking "I shouldn't be depressed" or "I've
>got to stop being angry", more likely than not you'll think about your
>depression or anger and whatever is causing it.
> So what do you do?? I've never found a better solution than just
>waiting. And while you're waiting, you should try not to nurse your negative
>about whatever's bothering you, think about C code or Elizabethan history
>or your favorite aunt or anything else you find interesting. You can't think
>about two things at once.
Well, there isn't anything you can do except wait, but you can wait a lot
faster than that. {concept stolen from *Stranger in a Strange Land*. If
you haven't read it in a while, check it out again.} If you are depressed
or angry, the idea is to find out why. This will probably have nothing to do
with the specific situation which triggered the whole thing, unfortunately. I
suspect there are many reasons why you might do this, but since I seem to
only do it for one reason I will let that secret out for anybody like me.
When I get angry or depressed, I am out and out saying that the universe
had damn well conform to my expectations for it or else! I'm going to
get what I want or else I will get really, really angry. (I get angry
several orders of magnitude more often then I get depressed.) This is
rather pointless -- I don't think that the universe particularily cares about
my anger. The question is -- why do I get angry? Why not just deal with
things as they arise?
When I get down to it, it is because at some level I think that I am too
incompetent to deal with things as they arise. I get scared and I blow
it. Now there are still a lot of situations I can't deal with very well;
why do I end up arguing with irrational people so often? but in the long
view I can probably handle whatever life throws at me. If I were
blinded, or when my best friend was killed in a car accident -- those
are nice solid reasons to get good and angry. But to get enraged
because the bottom fell out of the trash bag, or because your lover
isn't impressed at the incredible amount of work you went to to get
Grateful Dead tickets -- this seems rather stupid.
What you need to do to regain your ability to take life's little hassles
and disappointments in stride is to realise that you are actually very
competent and that you can handle it. So what you should do is find
something difficult and do it. It should be something that doesn't
take a lot of preparation or that doesn't take weeks to accomplish.
I know people who clean their house then, and I know others who lay out
boards then -- what I do is climb things. Rocks, caves, churches, bridges,
buildings, tall trees -- nothing is sacred. When I am really angry I
need a good 2-6 hour difficult climb which I have preferably never done
before but which I can just barely do.
When you get to the top, you look down and feel great. Magnanimous even.
So full of how demonstrably wonderful that you are than you can float on
past all those things which before were intolerable. It is difficult to
think that you are a louse from the top of a mountain. If you aren't
scaring yourself you will stop trying to bludgeon the world into
submission and start to either fix the problem or come up with a
work-around.
The Polymath
>
>someone that he's "fucking up" a situation? Why don't we let him
>have the dignity of finding it out himself and deciding for himself
>whether he's making a mistake?
In general I agree. Four years on a suicide prevention hotline taught me a
lot about the futility of trying to help someone who isn't ready to be
helped. There is at least one exception though. If the person fucking up
is causing _me_ grief or potential grief by doing so I'm going to tell them
about it. Politely and gently at first, of course, but if the behavior
continues I'm not above dropping a building (or other blunt object) on
them.
"Excuse me. When you were writing this code, did it happen to occur to you
that someone would have to maintain it? I thought not. Well, you can
think about it now, while your doing it over again. The coding standard is
right over there, in that notebook."
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI The more I work with C, the more I
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. appreciate the simple elegance of
Santa Monica, CA 90405 FORTRAN.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
Doug Mink
In article <6...@unc.unc.UUCP> goo...@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) writes:
> It's been my experience that you can't do a lot about your emotions by
> trying to do something about them. It's a lot like trying not to think
> about elephants. If someone tells you not to think about elephants, all
> you're going to be thinking about is elephants and how you're not supposed
> to think about them.
> So what do you do?? I've never found a better solution than just
> waiting... Instead of thinking about whatever's bothering you, think
> about anything else you find interesting. You can't think about two things
> at once.
I've found that it takes more than thinking to get me past a depression.
Sometimes, working on a project alone will distract me enough, but the
best thing I can do is to talk to friends who care how I feel. They don't
always have anything reassuring to say, but just knowing that they're there
is enough to keep me from hitting bottom.
--
Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Mass.
"I get by with a little help from my friends."
Marnix van Ammers
Walking a fast mile or two usually does the trick.
Marnix
hac...@uiucuxc.cso.uiuc.edu
I disagree with Pooh. You do have to tell friends when they may be
doing something wrong. That's what you are there for! Not to
criticize, but to tell them in a nice way, that they are doing the
wrong thing. I have a very close friend with whom I can tell anything
and vice-versa. She told me that if she saw me screwing up, she would
tell me. Even if it would make me mad, she would still say something.
I'm glad she would. Sometimes you can't see what's going on in your
life and you need someone else to point it out to you. Perhaps,
initially I would get upset, but after I've thought about it awhile,
I'd be grateful. And because we are such good friends, I value her
opinions strongly. Whatever she has to say is worth attending to.
Our friendship has thrived because of our ability to be completely
open with each other. Many times we'll call each other to validate our
thoughts and emotions. That is the integral part of our relationship!
So, even if I don't ask for her opinion, I expect it. Besides, I once
had a friend who would never tell me her opinion until I draggged it
out of her. It drove me crazy! I hate to ask someone all the time,
"Well, what do you think?" Just because I get someone's else opinion,
it doesn't mean that I feel obligated to follow the advise given. But
at least I'll have a more objective picture of a situation.
Donna
aMAZon
> .... It's been my experience that
> you can't do a lot about your emotions by trying to do something about them.
> It's a lot like trying not to think about elephants. If someone tells you not
> to think about elephants, all you're going to be thinking about is elephants
> and how you're not supposed to think about them.
> Likewise, if you keep thinking "I shouldn't be depressed" or "I've
> got to stop being angry", more likely than not you'll think about your
> depression or anger and whatever is causing it.
> So what do you do?? I've never found a better solution than just
> waiting. And while you're waiting, you should try not to nurse your negative
> emotion. That IS something you can take responsibility for. Instead of thinking
> about whatever's bothering you, think about C code or Elizabethan history
> or your favorite aunt or anything else you find interesting. You can't think
> about two things at once.
One other thing to do is to say the opposite of the behavior you're
trying to avoid. Instead of saying "I'm NOT angry" (while turning
red around the ears with suppressed anger), you could say "I'm
calm and happy".
You could also acknowledge the feeling. For example, instead
of saying "I'm not depressed, really", say "I'm sad now, and it
will be better in a little while."
Either way is a more positive reinforcement than trying
to ignore a problem.
--
aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
*open to possibilities*
Bruce Israel
>In article <2...@unirot.UUCP> po...@unirot.UUCP (Pooh) writes:
>>
>>Again, I ask: why? Why should we take it on ourselves to tell
>>someone that he's "fucking up" a situation? Why don't we let him
>>have the dignity of finding it out himself and deciding for himself
>>whether he's making a mistake?
>
>In general I agree. Four years on a suicide prevention hotline taught me a
>lot about the futility of trying to help someone who isn't ready to be
>helped.
I agree. If the person isn't ready to be helped, then its useless to
try to help them. (I said that in very similar words in my first
posting).
BUT ...
Where I disagree is with the automatic assumption that if the person
hasn't asked for help, then they aren't ready to be helped!
When I recommend helping people, I'm not saying
a) to do it all the time, or
b) to do it to everyone.
I think any advice giving or helping-hand giving has got to be
tempered with two things, is doing this better for the person than not
doing it (at least in my estimation), and are they ready for me to do
it.
The first one I've discussed in previous postings, so I won't cover it
here. I don't feel that you can know the second one for any man on
the street. Obviously to know if they're ready for your help, you
have to be close enough to them to know their desires, expectations,
etc. i.e. the things you know about friends. Doing things for people
other than friends can be useless or worse, unless what you are doing
is so innocuous that there is no chance of resentment or any problems.
The type of innocuous things I mean are things like letting a person
into your lane on the freeway, or holding open a door for someone.
Col. G. L. Sicherman
> >dodging responsibility for others' feelings?
> >
> >(I can just see the wave of responses from the "pro-Choice,"
> >"self-actualized" group: "But I'm NOT responsible!" ... Q.E.D.)
> >
> would INSIST that EVERYONE should have regard for the feelings of
> others. It is none-the-less true that feelings are a personal
> entity and you can change your feelings by understanding the
> personal processes you have that cause them in the first place.
You two seem to be talking right past each other. How about a compromise:
1. You are not responsible for what other people feel. You are
responsible to yourself for the _consequences_ of hurting
other people's feelings. It's unwise to make enemies.
It's unwise to be frank with strangers.
2. If you are pro-choice for everybody, and not just for yourself,
you cannot insist that everybody obey your rules of behavior.
Whether you are pro-choice or not, such insisting has no
effect.
As for whether you can change your feelings, I thought the discussion
had died out by now. What I believe is that you can change your
_thoughts_ (e.g., "everybody hates me"), but you cannot change
your feelings (e.g., grief). Try sticking your hand in a bowl of
ice water and feeling heat!
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
Bing Bang
put on a pink floyd disk (meddle or the dark side) in my CD and
turn up the volume untill i can feel the music through the floor...
the universe shrinks down to the inside of my room and the music
and i am the only two things that exist...
untill my mom knocks on the door...
bing
--
|
-*-
/|\
/ \ Season's greetings
/ \ Bing
/ \
/_________\
_______________|_|_____________ ...akgua!galbp!bing
Marnix van Ammers
>In the LifeSpring trainings, you are taught that "What you resist, persists."
>Resisting your emotions by thinking about pink elephants doesn't make them
>go away. When you get done thinking about pink elephants, they'll be back.
>
>You really need to get that it is your *choice* to feel depressed, or angry,
>or whatever. And that you can choose to feel great if you want to.
It couldn't be as simple as choosing how you want to feel or we'd all
feel great. And if it *is* that simple, please share your knowledge
with us all.
Marnix
Elliott S. Frank
> It couldn't be as simple as choosing how you want to feel or we'd all
> feel great. And if it *is* that simple, please share your knowledge
> with us all.
>
> Marnix
All of the various trainings (LifeSpring, the old est Training) bring
you to exactly that realization -- that you can choose to feel exactly
how it is that you feel.
"Choice" is used in a very strict sense of the word -- to "choose"
is to select freely, after due consideration, among the available
alternatives. AND, there is only one alternative. It's NOT choice like
in the grocery store. In a philosophical dictionary, this is referred
to as "existential choice."
You don't feel any better after choosing to feel <x> when you feel
<x>. However, you no longer go around feeling <x> and thinking
that it s h o u l d be some way other than it is. You just
feel <x> and know that that is the way that it is. You cut
down on a lot of the mischief that leaves us wondering what went wrong.
Talk to some of the folks with whom you work -- you'll find that there
are people around you who "have done est", "enjoyed LifeSpring",
"engaged in the Forum" and are a lot more satisfied with life after
having had the experience.
Dana S. Nau
was promoting Lifespring, est, etc., and the idea of "choosing how you feel":
I'm guessing you're new to net.singles. For your information, there was a
lengthy--and rather messy--discussion about this stuff, just a few months
ago. The main effect, as far as I could see, was that people on both sides
became dogmatic and sometimes nasty, and lots of ill will was generated.
Can we change the subject?
--
-- Dana S. Nau (dsn@rochester)
from U. of Maryland, on sabbatical at U. of Rochester
Vicious Oyster
>Regarding the posting from es...@amdahl.UUCP (Elliott S. Frank) in which he
>was promoting Lifespring, est, etc., and the idea of "choosing how you feel":
>
>I'm guessing you're new to net.singles. For your information, there was a
>lengthy--and rather messy--discussion about this stuff, just a few months
>ago. The main effect, as far as I could see, was that people on both sides
>became dogmatic and sometimes nasty, and lots of ill will was generated.
>
>Can we change the subject?
Sure, but he slipped in one comment which I believe was never brought up by
the est/Lifespring people, and which may go a long way toward converging the two
viewpoints. This was that they taught you not that you can choose to feel
however you want, but that you can choose to accept the way you feel. I was
one of the "can't choose" crowd, but *that* I can agree with.
- Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
Greg Woods
> the est/Lifespring people, and which may go a long way toward converging the two
> viewpoints. This was that they taught you not that you can choose to feel
> however you want, but that you can choose to accept the way you feel. I was
> one of the "can't choose" crowd, but *that* I can agree with.
I think the real problem in that whole discussion was the meaning of the word
"choose". I think the "can't choose" crowd (as you call it) was getting a
little angry because of confusion over what was meant by "choose". I suspect
they imagined someone consciously deciding "OK, I'm going to feel good today".
I think you are right that choosing to ACCEPT how you feel (as opposed to
resisting it or wishing you didn't feel that way) is much closer to the mark.
Think of it this way: suppose you feel bad, and you spend a lot of energy
wishing you didn't feel bad or wishing that what is causing you to feel bad
had not happened. How do you suppose *that* will make you feel? On the other
hand, suppose you simply decide to accept the fact that what happened, happened,
and that you feel bad about it. How does *that* make you feel? No, it is not
an instant cure for depression but it seems obvious that the latter approach
would lead to feeling less bad and for a shorter time. In this light
it would seem we DO have at least *some* control over our feelings. However,
I don't think anyone really wants to say that you can decide not to feel
depressed and suddenly *poof* you feel good. It doesn't work that way. If it
did, why would anyone choose to feel bad? They wouldn't, of course.
Conclusion? No one has instant full control over their feelings, but I think
we DO have a choice in how we *react* to our feelings which in turn does
have *some* influence over how we feel.
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
Laura Creighton
>I don't think anyone really wants to say that you can decide not to feel
>depressed and suddenly *poof* you feel good. It doesn't work that way. If it
>did, why would anyone choose to feel bad? They wouldn't, of course.
>Conclusion? No one has instant full control over their feelings, but I think
>we DO have a choice in how we *react* to our feelings which in turn does
>have *some* influence over how we feel.
I don't know how to get an instant *poof*, but there are a lot of people
who could feel a lot less depressed/angry/worried/whatever if they would
work at it. A great many people do not figure out *why* they are feeling
what they are feeling. It is a case of ``I have a feeling and that's it''.
This is really limiting.
d...@lanl.arpa
>
>A great many people do not figure out *why* they are feeling
>what they are feeling.
>
figure out *why*; but would argue that their life style was eminently
pleasing and besides, it's none of my business.
One became a "holy man"
and made lots of money explaining "auras" and "astral travel" to middle-
aged housewives. He sent out a monthly newsletter and their cards and
letters and checks seemed to "prove" that he was successful. He couldn't
get a date and was a virgin at 30, but he was successful. He was not
responsible for anyone but himself. He has accepted his particular
position in life...
Another is a very gentle man
a programmer of no special repute who has allowed himself to become very
large because it makes no difference to his current lifestyle. His
current lifestyle has been dictated by the lack of interest ladies showed
him before he became so fat. Now he is no longer responsible for others
reactions to him; he is reasonably happy with his gun collection and his
trailer house. He has accepted his particular position in life...
Another is a sandalmaker
and has finally moved out of Sacramento into the Oregon hills. He was
very responsible for my being the person I am. He makes sandals because
welding isn't as satisfying. He taught me a lot about ladies back in the
60s. He lives now, quite happily, with two women in a cabin in Oregon. The
cabin has no electricity and a stream runs through the livingroom. He has
accepted his particular position in life.
I think we could all imagine that the sandalmaker's life would be under
control; we might even accept that the guru is happy in an evil/manipulative
way; but the fat man needs help...
But they have all "chosen" to be what they are... The Sandalmaker had a
horrible divorce and thinks of women as young men with tits, The fat man
rarely thinks of women ( except his movie star sister and while listening
to Ronstadt records ), and the guru thinks only of power... BUT each is
complete and happy, why do I worry about them.
Dave Wade
Los Alamos National Laboratory
-
Raymond Allen
>
>"choose". I think the "can't choose" crowd (as you call it) was getting a
>little angry because of confusion over what was meant by "choose". I suspect
>they imagined someone consciously deciding "OK, I'm going to feel good today".
>I think you are right that choosing to ACCEPT how you feel (as opposed to
>resisting it or wishing you didn't feel that way) is much closer to the mark.
True. My experience has always been that refusing to accept your
actual feelings often forces you to invent a rationale to support your
stance of refusal. Often what happens is that you must exert so much energy
supporting this facade that you end up rationalizing yourself into a state
where you are expending an increasing amount of energy to "complete the
canvas", that is to supply all the missing details of your false self-
perception.
I have noted that people often get *really* depressed when
confronted with irrefutable evidence that their false self-image is, in
fact, false. You can't really hide from yourself forever.
>Think of it this way: suppose you feel bad, and you spend a lot of energy
>wishing you didn't feel bad or wishing that what is causing you to feel bad
>had not happened. How do you suppose *that* will make you feel?
Right on! Anyone who tries to do this is attempting the impossible:
They are trying to change the past. Don't think "in reverse". If you made
a mistake in the past, look for the knowledge of how learning from that
mistake can help you not do it again in the future. If you were wronged
by another person, realize that that action of that person is likely a
reflection of that person's personality. The next time (if there is a next
time) you encounter that individual you will better understand what to
expect from him/her.
>On the other
>hand, suppose you simply decide to accept the fact that what happened, happened,
>and that you feel bad about it. How does *that* make you feel? No, it is not
>an instant cure for depression but it seems obvious that the latter approach
>would lead to feeling less bad and for a shorter time. In this light
>it would seem we DO have at least *some* control over our feelings. However,
>I don't think anyone really wants to say that you can decide not to feel
>depressed and suddenly *poof* you feel good. It doesn't work that way. If it
>did, why would anyone choose to feel bad? They wouldn't, of course.
>Conclusion? No one has instant full control over their feelings, but I think
>we DO have a choice in how we *react* to our feelings which in turn does
>have *some* influence over how we feel.
It doesn't just stop there. While you can't say to yourself
"Be happy", you can *choose* to think happy thoughts. Try this sometime
when you are feeling unhappy. Think of a happy event or someone whose
memory is positive. I guarantee you that you will instantly feel more
positive as the memory is recalled. Why do you think that we try to
humor people who are depressed. Even severely depressed people will
feel happier when their minds are filled with happy images.
--
Ray Allen | "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
utcsri!ray | - Oscar Wilde as quoted in "Parachutes & Kisses" by Erica Jong
Pooh
>
>who could feel a lot less depressed/angry/worried/whatever if they would
>work at it. A great many people do not figure out *why* they are feeling
>what they are feeling. It is a case of ``I have a feeling and that's it''.
>This is really limiting.
>
I have a question for everyone: WHY should these depressed people
get over it?
For you? Is your best friend offending you by being depressed?
Is it taking too long? Do you hate to see someone depressed for
a reason that only you know about? And they won't even LISTEN
to you when you try to tell them what their problem is. Gosh. <-- sarcasm
How about for themselves? How about letting your friend get
over it when HE's good and ready, whatever that takes? It's HIS
depression, after all. Help him if he wants it--but don't take
it as a personal affront if he doesn't.
Let's stop prescribing for other people and just work on what
WE want to accomplish for ourselves.
Cheers,
Pooh topaz!unipress!pooh
topaz!unirot!pooh
"They're only lonely for the life that they led. . ."
Raymond Allen
>I have a question for everyone: WHY should these depressed people
>get over it?
>
>For you? Is your best friend offending you by being depressed?
>Is it taking too long? Do you hate to see someone depressed for
>a reason that only you know about? And they won't even LISTEN
>to you when you try to tell them what their problem is. Gosh. <-- sarcasm
>
>How about for themselves? How about letting your friend get
>over it when HE's good and ready, whatever that takes? It's HIS
>depression, after all. Help him if he wants it--but don't take
>it as a personal affront if he doesn't.
>
>Let's stop prescribing for other people and just work on what
>WE want to accomplish for ourselves.
>
This would be fine if people would only keep *their* depression(s)
to themselves. What may happen, however, is that depressed people insist
upon telling everyone in sight about how miserable their own life is and
how they wish they could do something about it but they can't because
someone or something won't let them and the entire human population
are a bunch of insensitive cretins and ... (etc. etc. ad nauseum).
[~ 1/8 of a :-)]
I can understand someone wanting to wallow in self-pity. I
have done it myself. But I do feel that I have learned enough about
life to offer people some constructive suggestions as to how to live
a fuller, happier life (excuse the honey). If someone is not interested
in listening to me (as is their right) then I believe that I have the
same right not to listen to them.
Excuse me if the above statements sound inflammatory. I am
not trying to bake anyone but I am trying to point out that
depressed, unhappy individuals often try to force everyone else
to share their misery while self-fulfilled, confident individuals
will try to help others help themselves. By the way, I don't approve
of preaching. I never offer advice unless it is asked for.
Hudson
Lets go back to Psychology 101 and remember:
emotions and feelings are composed of two necessary parts:
1 - the stimulus, and 2 - the interpretation.
There have been many times
when I thought I was depressed and then realized that the stimulus was;
pain killer medication, onset of flu, general lack of sleep. You can't
always do something about the stimulus but knowing what you're
really up against (know thyself) CAN make a difference in interpreting
what you are truly feeling. In all of these cases the realization of
the actual stimulus completely changed my mood.
A. Hudson
Vicious Oyster
>
>I am trying to point out that
>depressed, unhappy individuals often try to force everyone else
>to share their misery while self-fulfilled, confident individuals
>will try to help others help themselves.
So what's the difference, and if one of them is better than the other,
why?
Pooh
>to themselves. What may happen, however, is that depressed people insist
>upon telling everyone in sight about how miserable their own life is and
>how they wish they could do something about it but they can't because
>someone or something won't let them and the entire human population
>are a bunch of insensitive cretins and ... (etc. etc. ad nauseum).
>[~ 1/8 of a :-)]
I have encountered this too, Ray, but I've also found that some
depressed people just want someone to listen to them. It doesn't
hurt just to say, "I'm really sorry you're feeling this way,"
mean it, and leave it at that. You can offer support without
offering to solve their problems FOR them.
>
> I can understand someone wanting to wallow in self-pity. I
>have done it myself. But I do feel that I have learned enough about
>life to offer people some constructive suggestions as to how to live
>a fuller, happier life (excuse the honey).
Change that to "offer people some constructive suggestions as to
how *I* live a fuller, happier life" and that's great. I've got a
lot of those, too (send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to
How Pooh Is Happy, P.O.O.H. Box 666, Usenet), but they may not
be workable or desirable for someone else.
>If someone is not interested
>in listening to me (as is their right) then I believe that I have the
>same right not to listen to them.
Sure you do! Or you can listen, and refuse to let their depression
bring you down. But what are you saying here? "If you won't take
my advice, I'm not going to sympathize with you"? That doesn't strike
me as very helpful either.
> Excuse me if the above statements sound inflammatory. I am
>not trying to bake anyone but I am trying to point out that
>depressed, unhappy individuals often try to force everyone else
>to share their misery while self-fulfilled, confident individuals
>will try to help others help themselves. By the way, I don't approve
>of preaching. I never offer advice unless it is asked for.
I'm not sure whether you can accuse someone of trying to make
you as miserable as he is. Does anyone go around with that conscious
intention? I think it's more that someone who is depressed would
like to have his feelings acknowledged and empathized with.
Unfortunately, empathy means feeling the same thing, so we tend
to accuse someone of wanting us to be depressed too. I think
you CAN share someone's feelings, say, "Wow, that's really awful,
it must be very frustrating for you," and NOT let it affect your
own mood.
Oh, by the way, Happy New Year to everyone. . .:-)
Cheers,
Pooh topaz!unipress!pooh
topaz!unirot!pooh
Hey, kids, it's Moose Lobotomy Time!
Raymond Allen
>> Excuse me if the above statements sound inflammatory. I am
>>not trying to bake anyone but I am trying to point out that
>>depressed, unhappy individuals often try to force everyone else
>>to share their misery while self-fulfilled, confident individuals
>>will try to help others help themselves. By the way, I don't approve
>>of preaching. I never offer advice unless it is asked for.
>
>I'm not sure whether you can accuse someone of trying to make
>you as miserable as he is. Does anyone go around with that conscious
>intention?
Actually I have encountered many people whose attitude towards
others is: "Well, I am an unhappy person who is not getting what
I want out of life so I am going to try to ruin everyone else's
happiness by swamping them with stories of my own misery, criticizing
and denigrating any successes that they may have, continually reminding
them of how it is impossible to be happy, etc. etc." Have you ever
(for instance) told a friend about a date you had that you really enjoyed
and the *first* thing that they could think of to say was something
like: "Just you wait. All men are the same. He'll lead you on and
use you and then toss you away." The most reasonable conclusion that I
can draw from statements like this is that this person does not want
you to derive any pleasure from your experience. This certainly does
NOT take away from the friend who says: "Gee, he sounds like a really
nice guy. I hope that both of you continue to have a good time."
>I think it's more that someone who is depressed would
>like to have his feelings acknowledged and empathized with.
>Unfortunately, empathy means feeling the same thing, so we tend
>to accuse someone of wanting us to be depressed too. I think
>you CAN share someone's feelings, say, "Wow, that's really awful,
>it must be very frustrating for you," and NOT let it affect your
>own mood.
I agree that this is sometimes the case. Everyone is going to
experience depression or unhappiness from time to time. I, personally,
would not shun anyone who asks me for comfort at times like these. I do
find, however, that some people are only interested in using me as a
sounding board for their own problems. They never listen to what I
say and, consequently, never have the opportunity to derive any comfort
therefrom.
As usual, we have another "black and white" style argument. By
this I mean that we are trying to look at an issue in a very limited number
of ways. In fact there is an infinite number of variations of human
behavior between any two (or more) extremes. Actually, this is one
big problem with USENET. If I (or anyone else) posts an article supporting
or discussing a particular view of some general situation, it appears
that everyone else (well not everyone ... see I do it too!) assumes that
that opinion is the only one that is supported by me. Since there are
always going to be other facets to the argument some rabid-minded
individual(s) is(are) going to react in a knee-jerk fashion and flame
left, right and centre. (I'm not accusing you of this, Pooh).
This is my $.02 contribution to the discussion about non-face-to-face
communication.
Pooh
>> = me
>>I'm not sure whether you can accuse someone of trying to make
>>you as miserable as he is. Does anyone go around with that conscious
>>intention?
>
> Actually I have encountered many people whose attitude towards
>others is: "Well, I am an unhappy person who is not getting what
>I want out of life so I am going to try to ruin everyone else's
>happiness by swamping them with stories of my own misery, criticizing
>and denigrating any successes that they may have, continually reminding
>them of how it is impossible to be happy, etc. etc." Have you ever
>(for instance) told a friend about a date you had that you really enjoyed
>and the *first* thing that they could think of to say was something
>like: "Just you wait. All men are the same. He'll lead you on and
>use you and then toss you away." The most reasonable conclusion that I
>can draw from statements like this is that this person does not want
>you to derive any pleasure from your experience. This certainly does
>NOT take away from the friend who says: "Gee, he sounds like a really
>nice guy. I hope that both of you continue to have a good time."
Well, again, I don't think you could go up to someone and say,
"You're trying to make me as miserable as you are, aren't you?"
and have him say, "Yes!"
But you're right--that does happen. I find, though, that it really
takes the wind out of his sails to smile happily and say, "Oh,
nonsense!" (I did this often with a good friend who is a confirmed
wet blanket. I still do it. It seems to work.)
> As usual, we have another "black and white" style argument. By
>this I mean that we are trying to look at an issue in a very limited number
>of ways.
>Since there are
>always going to be other facets to the argument some rabid-minded
>individual(s) is(are) going to react in a knee-jerk fashion and flame
>left, right and centre. (I'm not accusing you of this, Pooh).
Yes, you are!! And you're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! :-)
Well, if you try to examine all possible facets of an argument,
you're going to come out looking pretty wishy-washy and you won't
make your own point too well. Being reasonable dulls the rhetoric. :-)
Cheers,
Pooh topaz!unipress!pooh
topaz!unirot!pooh
"Okay, I'll pick you up at ten and enrage you."