WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DISAPPOINTING?
If you knew me, the title of this blog post would come as a shock. I lean towards optimism thoroughly and with what I believe is great reason. I (justly) believe that within every human there is the capacity to form attachments which means there is the capacity for empathy which means there is the capacity for kindness and love. I believe all people can be good, and I believe, given the nature of the human condition, all people with full rational capacities are made necessarily interesting people. To be alive is inherently interesting.
With that in mind, then, why is it that my interactions with people are almost consistently disappointing? People are interesting, so they should be entertaining, and people tend towards polite (due to normalised 'manners' and such), so they should be inviting. Why isn't every interaction, then, a joy and wonder?
We can approach this from two angles, I suppose: that either 1) something is defective in the people that disallows them from being not disappointing, or 2) there is something defective in my approach and/or perspective in moments of interaction that does not allow me to see what, a priori, I know.
Let's start, at least, with approach 2, because, as a rule, I give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is I who have gone wrong. This is an excellent rule that I'd encourage anybody to use when there is any sense of ambiguity or uncertainty regarding a situation -- which means, naturally, if you're absolutely certain you're in the right, you can't give somebody the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt-condition under which you are giving somebody the benefit. No, only in times of uncertainty. But anyway, let's return to Approach 2.
Why are people so disappointing? I often find that people put up a cool façade, an ice-wall if you wish, which is very difficult to surmount. It is unappealing both because you fear getting your hands cold and wet and also you fear dropping and embarrassing yourself. This is to say, if you allow me to strip the metaphor, I believe within every person there is room for interesting expression and warmth in discourse, but I often find that it's ruined by a cold politics of politeness or a general wary distance. It's difficult to surmount this because you fear you will be bothering them if you try.
Now, I mentioned I am going with Approach 2, so: what is it in myself that is hindering me from smashing down or scaling the ice-wall? Upon consideration, it's the fact that I play their game. I put up an ice-wall myself. I join in the politics of politeness; I am wary and distant, I am, as a friend once pointed out to me, "aloof". So each interaction is between two people behind two ice-walls, viewing each other as distorted, wobbly, vaguely ethereal, certainly not real.
Why does the ice-wall exist? Protection. It keeps the bad out and requires only the most ardent to get in. But you reach a stalemate if you sit behind an ice-wall and they also sit behind an ice-wall, a stalemate realised as cold, disappointing, temporary, fleeting interactions. The first step, for me, I guess, is to melt my own wall. This way there isn't the double distortion of two ice-walls, and there's only the issue of getting past their wall. But first, if this is going to be useful at all, I have to strip the metaphor again and consider how I can melt my ice-wall.
The ice-wall is: stopping yourself from interacting because of a fear of X and stopping yourself from expressing a sentiment because of a fear of X. It's important to note that your fear of X will not disappear until you are given evidence that there is no reason to fear it, and the only evidence you can get that will be apt to convince you not to fear it is attained by doing a feared action wherein X does not follow, and so it is proved that to fear X is not always reasonable. Now, it might be the case that X does follow the action, and it reinforces your fear, but this is just an unfortunate fact of the nature of social fears. There is no other way around it. Live with the fear or act despite it. Acting despite it is melting the wall. So you have to accept that your fears may be proved to be justified, but then you must develop what they call a Thick Skin, and continue anyway. I'd like to point out here, though, that if you are content living a solitary life of social fear and introverted hermitism, that's okay and there is nothing to stop you from doing so. What is important in all of life is that your actions reflect that which will content you -- not necessarily give you the most well-being, but simply that which will not actively bring you undeserved pain. For me, I am not always comfortable with introverted hermitism, so it is important that I melt the ice-wall.
I think, to make this ever-more practical, as opposed to some merely quasi-philosophical contemplation, I should make a list of specific actions that I need to do to melt my ice-wall. I will get on that. I will start small: send people facebook messages, talk more in tutorials, etc.
There is the second question, however, of how to melt and/or scale their ice-wall. I think it's tempting to think that this is the trickier part of the project, but I think what I'll find is that in melting my own ice-wall, it will follow naturally that I try hard to scale their ice-wall. There is nothing else to do after I've melted my own; it's the next step necessarily. Being more forward means breaking down your own ice-wall, but also attacking theirs. It's two sides of the same coin. So, I guess what's important is to consider how to be forward.
This could be expressed as: Interest, Kindness, Honesty, Forethought, or... FIKH. Sorry, that's the best I've got, haha. Be a Fikh (like a Sikh, but with an F). Be Fore-thoughtful, Interested, Kind, and Honest. Be a Fikh.
But when things are difficult, remember to unpack the points. It's no use to remember what Fikh stands for without understanding the foundations.
It turns out that in approaching it from the second approach, I kind of figured out something about approach 1 as well. The thing within people that makes them disappointing is also the thing within me that makes me disappointing, and when I combat it in myself, it necessarily means I'm combating it in others.
I hope I can make use of these thoughts practically now, instead of just thinking about them. The onus there is on me, so we'll see.
With that in mind, then, why is it that my interactions with people are almost consistently disappointing? People are interesting, so they should be entertaining, and people tend towards polite (due to normalised 'manners' and such), so they should be inviting. Why isn't every interaction, then, a joy and wonder?
We can approach this from two angles, I suppose: that either 1) something is defective in the people that disallows them from being not disappointing, or 2) there is something defective in my approach and/or perspective in moments of interaction that does not allow me to see what, a priori, I know.
Let's start, at least, with approach 2, because, as a rule, I give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume it is I who have gone wrong. This is an excellent rule that I'd encourage anybody to use when there is any sense of ambiguity or uncertainty regarding a situation -- which means, naturally, if you're absolutely certain you're in the right, you can't give somebody the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt-condition under which you are giving somebody the benefit. No, only in times of uncertainty. But anyway, let's return to Approach 2.
Why are people so disappointing? I often find that people put up a cool façade, an ice-wall if you wish, which is very difficult to surmount. It is unappealing both because you fear getting your hands cold and wet and also you fear dropping and embarrassing yourself. This is to say, if you allow me to strip the metaphor, I believe within every person there is room for interesting expression and warmth in discourse, but I often find that it's ruined by a cold politics of politeness or a general wary distance. It's difficult to surmount this because you fear you will be bothering them if you try.
Now, I mentioned I am going with Approach 2, so: what is it in myself that is hindering me from smashing down or scaling the ice-wall? Upon consideration, it's the fact that I play their game. I put up an ice-wall myself. I join in the politics of politeness; I am wary and distant, I am, as a friend once pointed out to me, "aloof". So each interaction is between two people behind two ice-walls, viewing each other as distorted, wobbly, vaguely ethereal, certainly not real.
Why does the ice-wall exist? Protection. It keeps the bad out and requires only the most ardent to get in. But you reach a stalemate if you sit behind an ice-wall and they also sit behind an ice-wall, a stalemate realised as cold, disappointing, temporary, fleeting interactions. The first step, for me, I guess, is to melt my own wall. This way there isn't the double distortion of two ice-walls, and there's only the issue of getting past their wall. But first, if this is going to be useful at all, I have to strip the metaphor again and consider how I can melt my ice-wall.
The ice-wall is: stopping yourself from interacting because of a fear of X and stopping yourself from expressing a sentiment because of a fear of X. It's important to note that your fear of X will not disappear until you are given evidence that there is no reason to fear it, and the only evidence you can get that will be apt to convince you not to fear it is attained by doing a feared action wherein X does not follow, and so it is proved that to fear X is not always reasonable. Now, it might be the case that X does follow the action, and it reinforces your fear, but this is just an unfortunate fact of the nature of social fears. There is no other way around it. Live with the fear or act despite it. Acting despite it is melting the wall. So you have to accept that your fears may be proved to be justified, but then you must develop what they call a Thick Skin, and continue anyway. I'd like to point out here, though, that if you are content living a solitary life of social fear and introverted hermitism, that's okay and there is nothing to stop you from doing so. What is important in all of life is that your actions reflect that which will content you -- not necessarily give you the most well-being, but simply that which will not actively bring you undeserved pain. For me, I am not always comfortable with introverted hermitism, so it is important that I melt the ice-wall.
I think, to make this ever-more practical, as opposed to some merely quasi-philosophical contemplation, I should make a list of specific actions that I need to do to melt my ice-wall. I will get on that. I will start small: send people facebook messages, talk more in tutorials, etc.
There is the second question, however, of how to melt and/or scale their ice-wall. I think it's tempting to think that this is the trickier part of the project, but I think what I'll find is that in melting my own ice-wall, it will follow naturally that I try hard to scale their ice-wall. There is nothing else to do after I've melted my own; it's the next step necessarily. Being more forward means breaking down your own ice-wall, but also attacking theirs. It's two sides of the same coin. So, I guess what's important is to consider how to be forward.
- Be particularly forward with those in which you are particularly interested
- Be kind to everybody, but do not play the politics of kindness or you build your ice-wall again, so:
- Keep your personality - be strange, be funny, be snarky, be sarcastic, whatever you may be, but doing it kindly and without malicious intent and people can only take kindly to you in varying degrees; if you are being genuinely kind and one does not take kindly to you in return, they are Assholes and those are the ones you don't need anyway
- If you are going to be forward (which you must), try to know what you are going to say beforehand, otherwise you appear desperately earnest as opposed to interested. I am still trying to figure out whether it is better be forward and not know what to say beforehand, or to be demure because you don't know what to say. I think, on occasion, it is better to be forward despite not knowing what to say, and accept that you will appear desperately earnest. If you remain kind, hopefully this won't put people off too strongly.
- This should have been mentioned in the point "keep your personality", but I didn't write it there and we are already one whole point after that so I am writing it here now: be honest, but only as honest as necessary (don't be unnecessarily honest, i.e. don't provide honest insights that aren't welcome). Be honest with yourself: express your sureties and your naiveties with equal honesty and bravery. It is much better that someone enjoys the you that is honestly you as opposed to a you you have falsely manufactured.
This could be expressed as: Interest, Kindness, Honesty, Forethought, or... FIKH. Sorry, that's the best I've got, haha. Be a Fikh (like a Sikh, but with an F). Be Fore-thoughtful, Interested, Kind, and Honest. Be a Fikh.
But when things are difficult, remember to unpack the points. It's no use to remember what Fikh stands for without understanding the foundations.
It turns out that in approaching it from the second approach, I kind of figured out something about approach 1 as well. The thing within people that makes them disappointing is also the thing within me that makes me disappointing, and when I combat it in myself, it necessarily means I'm combating it in others.
I hope I can make use of these thoughts practically now, instead of just thinking about them. The onus there is on me, so we'll see.
Comments
Post a Comment