Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site unirot.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!caip!unirot!pooh From: pooh@unirot.UUCP (Pooh) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: sensitivity Message-ID: <219@unirot.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 13:26:15 EST Article-I.D.: unirot.219 Posted: Mon Nov 25 13:26:15 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 07:55:20 EST References: <1933@zehntel.UUCP> <3850033@csd2.UUCP> <218@unirot.UUCP> <2322@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: The Soup Kitchen, Piscataway NJ Lines: 93 Summary: who are we to diagnose? In article <2322@umcp-cs.UUCP>, israel@umcp-cs.UUCP (Bruce Israel) writes: > > 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, Pooh topaz!unipress!pooh topaz!unirot!pooh Cute, cute As a button; Don't you wanna make him stay up late?