A Matter Of Perspective
Jul. 8th, 2004 05:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcepsaA very close friend of mine in Arizona recently asked me how I can possibly take the approach to friendship and love that I do. Before I try to explain that, though, I suppose I should explain what that approach is.
I try to take the approach that "Hey, you're someone with whom I enjoy spending time, but if there are other things you want to do more, that's cool." For me, the occasional acknowledgement every few months is usually enough to let me know that those channels are still open if I need them or want them.
On the flip side, there are lots of things that I want to do that none of my current friends seem that interested in, or they're just not able to do them, or I would simply prefer to do that particular activity by myself at this particular point in time, or I might have a desire to do one particular activity with one friend, but not with another. Ideally, all of the people who want to do things with me would be understanding of my preference not to do something with them, regardless of the reason. They wouldn't be hurt, I wouldn't feel guilty about wanting to spend this time without them, we'd figure out something else to do together, life would go happily along. Similarly, if they wanted to do something without me, I wouldn't be bothered.
However, I'm not always able to have that attitude! Sometimes someone that I want to do something with wants to do something else with someone else. Sometimes they want to do that same thing with someone else. (Anime and manga authors know that this is one of the best ways to induce angst, and inflict it mercilessly upon their poor unsuspecting characters.)
When that happens, the facts that I know are these:
1) I want to do something with them.
2) They want to do something with someone else.
Anything else is a conclusion that I've jumped to, which is why it's critical that I watch myself very closely when this happens. Usually my habit of thinking tends to react like this: "They'd rather do something with this other person than me." Or, "They don't want to do something with me, so they must not like me anymore." And I feel miserable and unloved because I like this other person and I've done all these things for them and how could they not want to do something with me after all that I've done for them?!
Then I realized that, at least for me, that kind of thought is hypocritical. I often want to do stuff by myself, or with specific people, and that doesn't mean that I don't like my other friends any less. For me to assume that they don't like me if they don't want to do a particular thing with me simply doesn't make sense when looked at like that. My egocentric social conditioning has a twisted logic of its own, however, and so I need to very very gently remind myself that really I don't have any reason to suspect that they no longer want to be my friend, or that they don't care about me anymore. The key word there is "gently." If I get angry with myself or call myself names for failing to realize that right off the bat, it defeats the purpose of trying to remind myself that I don't have to feel bad. I'll still feel bad, just for different reasons. Conditioning still wins, and keeps me under its tight control.
It seems like people are always going on these days about how important communication is, especially in relationships. They're right! If something like this happens to throw doubt on your friendship, try telling your friend that, hey, you're feeling uncertain about how the relationship is going and you'd like some reassurance. However, it's imperative that you get clarity with yourself on exactly what sort of reassurance you want before discussing it with them, so they can better understand your feelings. Telling them that you want reassurance and they have to figure out how to give you that reassurance is a really good way to drive a wedge between you and your friend.
If you're unwilling to even talk about it with them, or get that clarity about what you want, I strongly recommend that you take a very close look at why you're not willing to take a look at it. Most people use the defense that they're afraid that the person will confirm their fears. I suspect that the real reason underlying that isn't that they're afraid they'll be right; it's that they don't want to take the chance that they are wrong. They are not willing to accept the possibility that the other person does still like them and just would rather do this thing without them. People are conditioned to always be right even (or possibly especially) if it means being right that they're an unlovable, unlikable person. (When was the first time you took a test in school? What about the first time someone got mad at you for giving them mistaken information? That's how long you've been being conditioned to always have the right answer.) At least if you know you're wrong then you know where you stand and you can proceed to the important business of beating yourself up until you reform.
Interestingly, it is a choice that you have. The facts from before (you want todo something with them, they don't want to do something with you) are presented to you. At that point, you get to decide how you are going to react. Most of us are conditioned to go off on a thought process similar to the one I described earlier. However, you are not forced to have that reaction. You can choose not to let that bother you. It is possible to catch your habitual thought, your reaction, as it starts and not let it impact you because you recognize that it is just a habit. You can train yourself, through practice, to recognize that it is possible for them to want to do things without you and yet still have amazingly strong feelings of love or companionship or friendship towards you.
The way to do this is to focus on developing your self-esteem. There's a T-shirt that says, "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" People laugh because it's such an obviously bad way to improve morale (with the exception, perhaps, of certain masochists). The sadly ironic part is that most people take that approach when it comes to themselves. Trust me, as long as you keep beating yourself, your morale isn't going to get much better. You're the only person who can stop beating yourself though--you can't rely on anyone else to validate you to yourself. Not because nobody would try--they might do everything in their power to show you that you are lovable, likable, whatever. As long as you believe that you are unlovable, no matter what anyone does to demonstrate otherwise, if you have an attachment to being right, you will come up with some rationalization to prove them wrong and reinforce that you're right--about the idea that you're unlovable! If you've ever heard someone tell you that you had a choice between being right and being happy, that's probably what they were talking about. As long as you keep looking for proof from the outside world that you are lovable, if you're not willing to be proven wrong about being unlovable, you'll never get it.
On the flip-side, when you realize that you are lovable, and that people do care about you, you also realize that you don't need them to constantly be demonstrating it to you. You just know that since you are lovable, of course, people naturally do care about you. That's what happens to lovable people; people love them. They don't always have to show it, and maybe not everybody does, but once you decide to believe that someone believes in you, you don't need them to prove it. In fact, the very actions that you would have used to convince yourself that they don't care about you anymore now can be rationalized the other way; they believe that you are a strong enough person that you would want them to do what they want to do, because they know that you'll be all right without them if they go and do it. Wow, warm fuzzies because you were able to give them the confidence to go and have a good time and not worry about you, and that you'd be there for them if they needed you, or that you want to do something with them sometime. Of course, if you're not familiar with this perspective it probably sounds crazy to you.
But if I'm wrong about this, then I don't want to be right! ^_^
I try to take the approach that "Hey, you're someone with whom I enjoy spending time, but if there are other things you want to do more, that's cool." For me, the occasional acknowledgement every few months is usually enough to let me know that those channels are still open if I need them or want them.
On the flip side, there are lots of things that I want to do that none of my current friends seem that interested in, or they're just not able to do them, or I would simply prefer to do that particular activity by myself at this particular point in time, or I might have a desire to do one particular activity with one friend, but not with another. Ideally, all of the people who want to do things with me would be understanding of my preference not to do something with them, regardless of the reason. They wouldn't be hurt, I wouldn't feel guilty about wanting to spend this time without them, we'd figure out something else to do together, life would go happily along. Similarly, if they wanted to do something without me, I wouldn't be bothered.
However, I'm not always able to have that attitude! Sometimes someone that I want to do something with wants to do something else with someone else. Sometimes they want to do that same thing with someone else. (Anime and manga authors know that this is one of the best ways to induce angst, and inflict it mercilessly upon their poor unsuspecting characters.)
When that happens, the facts that I know are these:
1) I want to do something with them.
2) They want to do something with someone else.
Anything else is a conclusion that I've jumped to, which is why it's critical that I watch myself very closely when this happens. Usually my habit of thinking tends to react like this: "They'd rather do something with this other person than me." Or, "They don't want to do something with me, so they must not like me anymore." And I feel miserable and unloved because I like this other person and I've done all these things for them and how could they not want to do something with me after all that I've done for them?!
Then I realized that, at least for me, that kind of thought is hypocritical. I often want to do stuff by myself, or with specific people, and that doesn't mean that I don't like my other friends any less. For me to assume that they don't like me if they don't want to do a particular thing with me simply doesn't make sense when looked at like that. My egocentric social conditioning has a twisted logic of its own, however, and so I need to very very gently remind myself that really I don't have any reason to suspect that they no longer want to be my friend, or that they don't care about me anymore. The key word there is "gently." If I get angry with myself or call myself names for failing to realize that right off the bat, it defeats the purpose of trying to remind myself that I don't have to feel bad. I'll still feel bad, just for different reasons. Conditioning still wins, and keeps me under its tight control.
It seems like people are always going on these days about how important communication is, especially in relationships. They're right! If something like this happens to throw doubt on your friendship, try telling your friend that, hey, you're feeling uncertain about how the relationship is going and you'd like some reassurance. However, it's imperative that you get clarity with yourself on exactly what sort of reassurance you want before discussing it with them, so they can better understand your feelings. Telling them that you want reassurance and they have to figure out how to give you that reassurance is a really good way to drive a wedge between you and your friend.
If you're unwilling to even talk about it with them, or get that clarity about what you want, I strongly recommend that you take a very close look at why you're not willing to take a look at it. Most people use the defense that they're afraid that the person will confirm their fears. I suspect that the real reason underlying that isn't that they're afraid they'll be right; it's that they don't want to take the chance that they are wrong. They are not willing to accept the possibility that the other person does still like them and just would rather do this thing without them. People are conditioned to always be right even (or possibly especially) if it means being right that they're an unlovable, unlikable person. (When was the first time you took a test in school? What about the first time someone got mad at you for giving them mistaken information? That's how long you've been being conditioned to always have the right answer.) At least if you know you're wrong then you know where you stand and you can proceed to the important business of beating yourself up until you reform.
Interestingly, it is a choice that you have. The facts from before (you want todo something with them, they don't want to do something with you) are presented to you. At that point, you get to decide how you are going to react. Most of us are conditioned to go off on a thought process similar to the one I described earlier. However, you are not forced to have that reaction. You can choose not to let that bother you. It is possible to catch your habitual thought, your reaction, as it starts and not let it impact you because you recognize that it is just a habit. You can train yourself, through practice, to recognize that it is possible for them to want to do things without you and yet still have amazingly strong feelings of love or companionship or friendship towards you.
The way to do this is to focus on developing your self-esteem. There's a T-shirt that says, "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" People laugh because it's such an obviously bad way to improve morale (with the exception, perhaps, of certain masochists). The sadly ironic part is that most people take that approach when it comes to themselves. Trust me, as long as you keep beating yourself, your morale isn't going to get much better. You're the only person who can stop beating yourself though--you can't rely on anyone else to validate you to yourself. Not because nobody would try--they might do everything in their power to show you that you are lovable, likable, whatever. As long as you believe that you are unlovable, no matter what anyone does to demonstrate otherwise, if you have an attachment to being right, you will come up with some rationalization to prove them wrong and reinforce that you're right--about the idea that you're unlovable! If you've ever heard someone tell you that you had a choice between being right and being happy, that's probably what they were talking about. As long as you keep looking for proof from the outside world that you are lovable, if you're not willing to be proven wrong about being unlovable, you'll never get it.
On the flip-side, when you realize that you are lovable, and that people do care about you, you also realize that you don't need them to constantly be demonstrating it to you. You just know that since you are lovable, of course, people naturally do care about you. That's what happens to lovable people; people love them. They don't always have to show it, and maybe not everybody does, but once you decide to believe that someone believes in you, you don't need them to prove it. In fact, the very actions that you would have used to convince yourself that they don't care about you anymore now can be rationalized the other way; they believe that you are a strong enough person that you would want them to do what they want to do, because they know that you'll be all right without them if they go and do it. Wow, warm fuzzies because you were able to give them the confidence to go and have a good time and not worry about you, and that you'd be there for them if they needed you, or that you want to do something with them sometime. Of course, if you're not familiar with this perspective it probably sounds crazy to you.
But if I'm wrong about this, then I don't want to be right! ^_^
;o)
Date: 2004-07-09 02:31 am (UTC)Hugs et al
You-Know-Who in Arizona
(and no NOT Voldemort!! LOL)