Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Steve's Law #1, reprise
« Best Vacation Ever |
Main
| Staying in Touch »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
January 04, 2006
Observations : Steve's Law #1, reprise
I have previously posted the first of my own collection of laws (why should Major Edward A. Murphy, Jr. have all of the fun?):
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence."
I've been thinking about this a bit more of late, and how this is derived from a more fundamental truth - that people are not as conscious of each other most of them think. It is very easy for people to observe someone else's behavior (the words they use, their body language, etc.) and read into it things like "they hate me", "they think I'm ugly", "they think I'm a fool", etc. when the unfortunate truth is the other person is not thinking about them at all.
The reality is that most people in the world, most of the time are so consumed by their own insecurities, their own problems, their own feelings; that they put very little energy into thinking about other people. And when they do think about other people, it is usually to figure out what the other person is thinking about them. The result is that what we see in other people is often just a reflection of our own insecurities.
As a result, many "relationships" (whether as friends or enemies) end up being like a pair of mirrors facing each other - reflecting their images back and forth but having no actual content. I react to what I think you are thinking about me based on superficial data and my own insecurities, and you react to that, and I react back, and so on. No real understanding of each other is involved, just an endless series of reflections of our own images projected onto each other.
What's truly sad is the amount of power we give to other people this way. We react to what we think other people think of us, and by doing that we give them power over us (after all, we are allowing them to effect our actions). The other person is often completely unaware of the power we have given them (and may not be very aware of us in general). Is it any wonder that in their ignorance they miss-use that power?
This trend is particularly problematical in families. We all have an innate expectation that we are important to our relatives; but quite often, that is simply not true. Often our relatives are people just like us with their own set of issues which consume their thinking. They may have very little "mind-share" available to really think about the others in the family and how their own actions effect the rest of the family - they are too busy thinking about how other people's actions effect them.
It takes a person who is very secure in their own identity and their place in the universe to get to the point of really considering what other people are going through; to think about how their actions affect other people. One needs to be at a point where it doesn't matter what other people think of you because you already know who you are. That then releases you from the burden of interpreting what other people think of you, and frees you to then actually think about them. This is the ideal to which we should all strive. However, while we struggle to reach that place, we need to be careful not to assume other people are already there - that they are actually conscious of their actions towards us. It is far safer to assume that other people (even family members) are unaware of how they affect us.
Posted by Steven at January 4, 2006 07:06 PM
Comments
Hmmm... after dinner conversation becomes blog-fodder. What will happen after we take our morning walk?
The same is true of when we are mad at someone...we are obsessed with something they did to us, while they have moved on. My dad used to say that the only person anger/hatred hurts is you.
Posted by: Anne at January 4, 2006 10:37 PM
You should know – EVERYTHING is blog fodder (as long as you can remove confidential details). However in this particular case, I actually wrote this over lunch at work and just didn't get around to posting it until after dinner, so if anything the blog was dinner-fodder.
Your point about anger is a good example.
Posted by: Steven at January 5, 2006 08:06 AM
I shared this with my group of gamers. This is what came back:
Related quote from Street Fighter the Movie:
Chun Li: My father saved his village at the cost of his own life. You had him shot as you ran away. A hero at a thousand paces!
Bison: I'm sorry... I don't remember any of it.
Chun Li: You don't remember?
Bison: For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me... it was Tuesday.
Posted by: roland at January 5, 2006 12:54 PM
Buffy did it better.
In the episode "Earshot", Buffy temporarily gains the ability to hear other people's thoughts (which almost drives her mad, but she does get a sense of what is happening in other people's head's). At the end (after she is cured) she ends up confronting a student (Jonathan) with a rife in the school bell tower:
JONATHAN (frazzled and sweating) Go away!
BUFFY Never gonna happen.
JONATHAN You think I won't use this?
BUFFY I don't know Jonathan. (takes a step forward) I just-
JONATHAN (Lurches back from her, aims the gun straight at her) Stop doing that!
BUFFY Doing what?
JONATHAN Stop saying my name like we're friends! We're not friends! You all think I'm an idiot! A short idiot!
BUFFY (matter-of-factly) I don't. I don't think about you much at all. Nobody here really does. Bugs you, doesn't it. You have all this pain, and all these feelings and nobody's really paying attention.
JONATHAN You think I just want attention?
BUFFY No. I think you're up in the clock tower with a high-powered rifle because you wanna blend in. Believe it or not, Jonathan, I understand about the pain.
JONATHAN Oh right. Cuz the burden of being beautiful and athletic, that's a crippler.
BUFFY You know what? I was wrong. You are an idiot. My life happens to, on occasion, suck beyond the telling of it. Sometimes more than I can handle. And it's not just mine. Every single person down there is ignoring your pain because they're too busy with their own.
(Jonathan lowers the rifle more. Buffy steps toward the window. She looks down at the Quad below.)
BUFFY The beautiful ones. The popular ones. The guys that pick on you. Everyone.
(Jonathan slowly moves up behind her to see what she sees. He steps up right next to her. )
BUFFY If you could hear what they were feeling. The loneliness. The confusion. It looks quiet down there. It's not. It's deafening.
Posted by: Steven at January 5, 2006 01:17 PM
The interesting thing is that these quotes really aren't about 'incompetence,' but something else. Indifference, maybe?
Corellary #1a:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere indifference."
Or maybe "self-absorption"?
Posted by: roland at January 5, 2006 01:53 PM
Good point!
Roland's Corollary to Steve's First law:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere indifference."
Posted by: Steven at January 5, 2006 02:14 PM
that's a really interesting post. especially the comments.
Posted by: vita at March 30, 2006 02:40 PM
by that, i mean to say: is that why guys don't call?
Posted by: vita at March 30, 2006 02:41 PM
Guys don't call for many reasons
- Some don't call because they are too afraid of being rejected to even try
- Some don't call because they already read into some unconscious gesture of yours that you didn't like them (even if you do)
- Some don't call because they are too consumed by their own problems to realized you are expecting them to
- Some don't call because they don't want more of a relationship but don't know how to say that
And, of course,
- Some don't call because they are just plain jerks.
My observation from conversations with other guys is that the last set is actually fairly small (but definitely not empty)
Posted by: Steven at March 30, 2006 03:25 PM
Hmmm. Now *that's* an interesting question!
I agree with Steve's reasons, and I'd like to amplify on them.
Guys don't call because of fear (of rejection, of commitment, of loss of control of where his life is going, of her friends, of her parents). They don't call because they find themselves overwhelmed (can't deal with her personality, put off by her habits, she's intelligent, she's independent of *him* or the opposite she's too clingy, sure she hates him or his habits). They don't call because of misunderstandings (something she did, something he did that he is now embarrassed about). They don't call because they are boors (wrapped up in his own world, doesn't care about other people, doesn't realize it is important, has never been taught manners, doesn't know how to handle himself in a relationship).
But there are also a lot of cases where it is clear - to him - from the start this is just not the right match. The guy figures that the gal knows it too and he has absolutely no clue that she doesn't. And because he doesn't know what else to say, he uses 'I'll call you' as a throw away line. (There was even a Friends episode on this.)
As for the true jerks, they are few and far between. They include the predators who are simply looking for another notch for their belt and little else.
Posted by: roland at April 4, 2006 02:54 PM
a throw away line?? a throw away line?? eff that, i say.
more importantly, a friends episode i haven't seen??? most likely a tres crucial one not to miss. ahh!
oh, and i guess it would be an "interesting question," nothing more, if you were a boy. eff that. boys find it interesting, well this isn't just interesting, i, my friends, have been hurt. this is not interesting, this is pain. eff that.
oh, and steve, sorry for turning your blog into a space for my ranting why BOYS SUCK.
teehee...
Posted by: !!!! at April 6, 2006 01:22 AM
Ranting against the immaturity levels of teenage and 20-something males is of little use. They still have the emotional development of 12-year-olds. It might be a fairer question to ask why society doesn't demand the same development in males that it seems to ask of females.
Posted by: roland at April 6, 2006 03:17 PM
um. i'd start to answer that question, but i'll spare everyone the torture by getting to my point, best summarized as:
pffffft.
Posted by: quite at April 7, 2006 07:15 AM
