So this is something new. Until now pretty much everything on this blog has been my own creation. Every post has been an idea that I have come up with and wrote about. Although with the short stories they were written by me in response to requests made where people gave me a name, a place, and a random object, and I wrote a story from that for them. Apart from that everything to date has been my own design.
This post is a little different because it was a request, I don't know who made it because they left an anonymous comment they didn't want published so I had no way to reply:
"You talk about trust a lot but if you lose someones trust how do you get it back?"
Note: This isn't the part of the comment they did not want published. There was a lot more which I have not included.
Trust is something that has two basic forms, explicit and implicit. Implicit trust is where you expect it from someone but it is never outright asked for, like a newborn baby implicitly trusts its mother to care for it. When you start a relationship with someone, whether it is romantic, or platonic, trust is implicit at first. It grows over time as you open up more to each other, confide in each other, and rely on one another. There are many expectations of each other that naturally evolve based on the understanding you have between one another. The path your relationship takes determines those expectations, they are not usually explicitly stated.
When you do something that makes someone lose trust in you, some people think to regain it you can essentially start again and rebuild implicitly. It doesn't work like that. If you think it does, the trust you rebuild will be false. They will always doubt you, they will always question you, they will never fully trust you again.
The reason it won't work is because the reason the trust was lost is definitive and explicit. As such if you want to rebuild your trust in one another you need to do it through explicit trust. To do that you have to be explicit. Explicit trust means giving up your right to privacy. You need to be completely open with them and answer any question they ask, hide nothing from them no matter how big or small, if they ask, you tell them. Over time their trust in you will return.
If you don't do this, every single thing you hide no matter how small will contribute to their feeling that you are deceiving them, and over time that will mount up. No matter how small and insignificant you think what you hide is, they will always think you are hiding more than you are. They will think, if you can't tell them something so small and insignificant that there's no reason at all to believe you would tell them something big that had a deep impact. This is paranoia, and this is what results from mistrust. You can label it in whatever way you want but ultimately you are the one that caused it by betraying their trust and giving them reason to doubt you. In many ways this is like the concept movie Inception tries to depict - once an idea is planted, it grows. There's nothing you can do to stop that growth, except remove the root cause.
Trust once lost is incredibly hard to get back, and in many ways you might not be willing to do what it takes to rebuild it. If you are not willing then you have to ask yourself how much the other person means to you, how much you want them in your life and ask yourself if what it takes is more than that. If the answer is yes then you should walk away and stop prolonging the inevitable. If the answer is no then you will be explicit and give up your right to privacy completely. This won't last forever. As trust is regained your privacy will be regained, you can use that as a measure of how much they trust you - that is of course so long as you are not doing anything that causes them hurt or distress, in which case distance does not imply their trust has been restored, but rather that they have stopped caring and have slowly begun to detach from you.
I'm not sure how I feel about these types of posts, but if you have anything you want to ask feel free to comment below. I won't guarantee I will make a post about it, but at the very least I will read what you write. As usual all comments are moderated and don't appear until I approve them so if you want to ask something privately just ask not to publish it.
Invisible Disability
There is a phrase that people often utter and I find it vulgar and ignorant and that is: "He doesn't look disabled" - a phrase I have heard describing others and also myself. I have a disability in terms of my visual impairment and it causes a lot of problems in life. I am what you would call well adjusted, meaning I live quite a functional life and in many ways most people would not even know I had any difficulty at all unless I told them. This is an invisible disability by nature, something which is not obvious to see when you look at someone.
Physical disabilities are often visible, but these disabilities are a minority in comparison to the many conditions people live with and have to overcome. Even the definition of a disability can at times be considered fluid as there are people who would not consider themselves disabled even with a condition that would be considered as such. This all brings us back to the idea that there is an expected behaviour that people who are disabled should conform to, for other people to be able to see they have a disability.
The problem I have with this sentiment is the way it is used with negative connotations. It undermines what a person has achieved and overcome. People who are well adjusted are often deemed to be fraudulent, or they are deemed to be deceptive. I have had this said to me too, people who lack the understanding of how my Nystagmus affects me are often surprised by what I can read up close and what I can see at a distance, to the point where I have been accused of making it up. The only saving grace for me with Nystagmus is the fact that my eyes constantly move, which anyone who pays close enough attention will see - which has caused confidence issues as I have discussed before - but that one visible aspect somehow redeems my claim. If my eyes didn't move then people wouldn't believe me. I find that quite infuriating because it perpetuates the idea that struggle has to be visible as well as the condition. That you have to be seen to be finding things hard to do in order for people to believe you.
There are many diseases and illnesses that have no outwardly visible symptoms. Even simple benign things like a headache are not visible. If you had Cancer and went to a Doctor who refused to believe you had it as you "don't look like you have Cancer" you would likely be mortified. I am a non violent person but even I would want to punch him. To take the view that health and well-being are visual and that any deviation from that must produce a visible sign of that deviation is incredibly closed minded, and it is incredibly dangerous. "I don't have it, I would know, I'd have symptoms" is an incredibly weak argument. Many diseases for one have incubation periods during which no symptoms at all occur, visible or not. Some you can even have for years before you show any symptoms at all.
People say we shouldn't judge each other by what we look like, a sentiment often reserved for referring to peoples' attractiveness - that sentiment needs to be extended to health too. You shouldn't judge a person's health by what they look like.
Physical disabilities are often visible, but these disabilities are a minority in comparison to the many conditions people live with and have to overcome. Even the definition of a disability can at times be considered fluid as there are people who would not consider themselves disabled even with a condition that would be considered as such. This all brings us back to the idea that there is an expected behaviour that people who are disabled should conform to, for other people to be able to see they have a disability.
The problem I have with this sentiment is the way it is used with negative connotations. It undermines what a person has achieved and overcome. People who are well adjusted are often deemed to be fraudulent, or they are deemed to be deceptive. I have had this said to me too, people who lack the understanding of how my Nystagmus affects me are often surprised by what I can read up close and what I can see at a distance, to the point where I have been accused of making it up. The only saving grace for me with Nystagmus is the fact that my eyes constantly move, which anyone who pays close enough attention will see - which has caused confidence issues as I have discussed before - but that one visible aspect somehow redeems my claim. If my eyes didn't move then people wouldn't believe me. I find that quite infuriating because it perpetuates the idea that struggle has to be visible as well as the condition. That you have to be seen to be finding things hard to do in order for people to believe you.
There are many diseases and illnesses that have no outwardly visible symptoms. Even simple benign things like a headache are not visible. If you had Cancer and went to a Doctor who refused to believe you had it as you "don't look like you have Cancer" you would likely be mortified. I am a non violent person but even I would want to punch him. To take the view that health and well-being are visual and that any deviation from that must produce a visible sign of that deviation is incredibly closed minded, and it is incredibly dangerous. "I don't have it, I would know, I'd have symptoms" is an incredibly weak argument. Many diseases for one have incubation periods during which no symptoms at all occur, visible or not. Some you can even have for years before you show any symptoms at all.
People say we shouldn't judge each other by what we look like, a sentiment often reserved for referring to peoples' attractiveness - that sentiment needs to be extended to health too. You shouldn't judge a person's health by what they look like.
Are you interested?
Ask yourself two questions: Do you think people find you interesting? Do you want them to? If you stick to yes and no answers there are 4 possible outcomes to these two questions.
The first two, if people do find you interesting are the scenarios where you want them to and where you don't. If you want them to then you get the attention you desire, but if you don't then that amounts to unwanted attention.
The second two, if people don't find you interesting are the scenarios where you want them to and where you don't. If you want them to then that makes you an attention seeker, and if you don't want them to then you are happy in obscurity.
For me personally I think I move between the four quite a lot. Maybe that's the same for everyone maybe not. There are times when you want people to pay attention to what you are doing, but there are times when that's the last thing you want. The irony here is that it is often the reverse that is true, when we don't want anyone to pay attention to us we find ourselves with people paying the most, and vice versa. You could dismiss this as wanting what we can't have and say the only reason we don't want attention when we have it is because we want what we can't have but that completely dismisses the idea that you can be happy with what you have.
For businesses and people trying to succeed in a given field, arguably attention seeking is an entire career in and of itself. I guess to that extent if you want to succeed in marketing then you need an attention seeker, or someone famous who already has attention to promote your brand.
The thing is, finding attention is easy if you know what you want people to pay attention to; in our marketing example if you want people to pay attention to a product then you need to know as much about the product and the intended target audience as you can to make it easier to market to them. What does that mean for individuals however? If an individual wants attention they will usually seek it from anyone at all or from one person in particular. If you apply the same logic as you do with marketing then that would be wasted effort, as you are ignoring the question of whether or not the target is part of the target audience and would be interested at all to begin with.
Interest is something that is easier to pique if you know what a person is interested in, and then find a way to incorporate that into your product or whatever you are trying to sell. The goto interest in this respect is often sex, because as we all know, sex sells. That mantra from marketing has become so ambient that even if you have no interest in marketing whatsoever you will still have heard the phrase. When you think about that however you begin to come to the realisation that the reason apps like Grindr and Scruff etc exist in the gay community and in the dating world as a whole [even Tinder et al in the straight dating world] is because people are led to believe that if they want to pique someone's interest in them the best way to do it is through sex. In other words you have nothing else to offer, or feel like you have nothing else to offer than sex.
Confidence is a major turn on and the confidence to say you like something and be passionate about it is something that shows you are not one dimensional. When you look at the empty world of apps like this you see that people are literally trying to fill a void in themselves. The idea that if you are absolutely amazing in the sack some guy will want to have a relationship is incredibly naive. You can't have sex every second of your relationship, sooner or later you are going to have to spend time together and actually get to know each other and find out if it would ever work between the two of you. The cart seems to have been put before the horse, the "easier" people become the less interest there is in actually getting to know each other and the more interest there is in finding someone to fuck. The reason that is dangerous is because it leads to disinterest in anything else, to the point where an actual relationship becomes impossible for you to have.
Apps like Grindr are designed for sex. Nothing more. If your interest in someone is purely sexual then that's all you will ever get from them, sex, nothing more.
The first two, if people do find you interesting are the scenarios where you want them to and where you don't. If you want them to then you get the attention you desire, but if you don't then that amounts to unwanted attention.
The second two, if people don't find you interesting are the scenarios where you want them to and where you don't. If you want them to then that makes you an attention seeker, and if you don't want them to then you are happy in obscurity.
For businesses and people trying to succeed in a given field, arguably attention seeking is an entire career in and of itself. I guess to that extent if you want to succeed in marketing then you need an attention seeker, or someone famous who already has attention to promote your brand.
The thing is, finding attention is easy if you know what you want people to pay attention to; in our marketing example if you want people to pay attention to a product then you need to know as much about the product and the intended target audience as you can to make it easier to market to them. What does that mean for individuals however? If an individual wants attention they will usually seek it from anyone at all or from one person in particular. If you apply the same logic as you do with marketing then that would be wasted effort, as you are ignoring the question of whether or not the target is part of the target audience and would be interested at all to begin with.
Interest is something that is easier to pique if you know what a person is interested in, and then find a way to incorporate that into your product or whatever you are trying to sell. The goto interest in this respect is often sex, because as we all know, sex sells. That mantra from marketing has become so ambient that even if you have no interest in marketing whatsoever you will still have heard the phrase. When you think about that however you begin to come to the realisation that the reason apps like Grindr and Scruff etc exist in the gay community and in the dating world as a whole [even Tinder et al in the straight dating world] is because people are led to believe that if they want to pique someone's interest in them the best way to do it is through sex. In other words you have nothing else to offer, or feel like you have nothing else to offer than sex.
Confidence is a major turn on and the confidence to say you like something and be passionate about it is something that shows you are not one dimensional. When you look at the empty world of apps like this you see that people are literally trying to fill a void in themselves. The idea that if you are absolutely amazing in the sack some guy will want to have a relationship is incredibly naive. You can't have sex every second of your relationship, sooner or later you are going to have to spend time together and actually get to know each other and find out if it would ever work between the two of you. The cart seems to have been put before the horse, the "easier" people become the less interest there is in actually getting to know each other and the more interest there is in finding someone to fuck. The reason that is dangerous is because it leads to disinterest in anything else, to the point where an actual relationship becomes impossible for you to have.
Apps like Grindr are designed for sex. Nothing more. If your interest in someone is purely sexual then that's all you will ever get from them, sex, nothing more.
Thought Control
Every single person has an internalised mental state. This state changes over time. The things we see and do will inevitably lead us to learn new things adding to our knowledge and experience, and in some cases wisdom where it can be found. This process of personal development is individual by nature, and although we may share the same experiences, how we react to those experiences and what we learn from them will not always be the same. You can raise two people in the exact same environment and treat them exactly the same and they will still turn out differently with unique thought patterns and their own views on life, the universe, and everything.
While this is intriguing by itself and it does encourage diversity, it does however pose another question. How do you exercise control over thoughts? Now you may immediately react negatively to the idea of controlling someone's thoughts at all and while I do agree to an extent there are moral and ethical issues to be considered, there are however instances where it is beneficial to condition people to act in a given way or behave in a given way. While you will still be fighting this idea you will likely not argue if I was to say it is beneficial to teach a child that killing is wrong and that murdering another human being is something they should never do. While you can teach a child the difference between right and wrong, you can't control what they think of what you teach them. For example theft is something we are taught is wrong from a young age. However many people, who will conform to the expectation that they should not steal, will continue to think they should be allowed to and that they would do it if they believed they could get away with it. This is dangerous as complacency of this nature often leads to confidence that they can commit these crimes and get away with them.
Most criminals are not idiots. Most criminals are aware that their actions are seen as wrong, both by other people and by the eyes of the law. However they continue to commit their crimes because they believe they are justified in their actions or believe they are deserving of the ends they achieve or quite simply they believe they can get away with it. The question this raises is whether or not thought control is something that would reduce this type of crime.
There is something I have said many times in reference to LGBT activism, and that is that legislation is only a fraction of the problem. Homophobia does not magically disappear when it is made illegal, it becomes more obscure, hidden, underground, and in some respects a lot more dangerous. A homophobe's mind and their thought process does not miraculously change because their view has been deemed offensive and the law prohibits them from expressing it or acting upon it; they still think the way they did before. Education is important in this regard to raise awareness of homophobia but as we have already shown above with the examples of theft and murder, teaching someone that something is wrong, will not necessarily stop them from doing it. You could even argue with some personality types telling someone that what they are doing is wrong will make them much more likely to do it but I digress.
What this all boils down to is the simple question, how do you change how people think? Is it even possible to exercise that degree of control at all? While classical conditioning can instil certain behaviours there is no evidence to show that the thoughts of disobeying ever disappear. In short, they may increasingly do what you say to a T, that does not mean they have stopped thinking the way they always did - it only means the reward they will receive for acting in the way you conditioned them to is deemed greater than the reward of pursuing their own thoughts; this is akin to behaviour through bribery. In many ways you can compare that to hypnotism - in that deep down the subject has to be willing to do it for it to work, if they really don't want to be hypnotised they will not be hypnotised.
With all this being true then the natural conclusion to draw is that prosperity should inversely correlate to levels of crime. In other words the more prosperous a place becomes, the lower its crime rate will become. Not because the citizens have found any great revelation of altruism or virtue but simply because the potential reward is not enough to warrant their actions. While that is a case of controlling behaviour, it does not control thought. When a great enough reward comes along the individual in question will commit that crime. The problem with that, if we use murder as an example is to say that every single person is a murderer for the right price - all you need to do is find the price. That's a little unsettling.
While this is intriguing by itself and it does encourage diversity, it does however pose another question. How do you exercise control over thoughts? Now you may immediately react negatively to the idea of controlling someone's thoughts at all and while I do agree to an extent there are moral and ethical issues to be considered, there are however instances where it is beneficial to condition people to act in a given way or behave in a given way. While you will still be fighting this idea you will likely not argue if I was to say it is beneficial to teach a child that killing is wrong and that murdering another human being is something they should never do. While you can teach a child the difference between right and wrong, you can't control what they think of what you teach them. For example theft is something we are taught is wrong from a young age. However many people, who will conform to the expectation that they should not steal, will continue to think they should be allowed to and that they would do it if they believed they could get away with it. This is dangerous as complacency of this nature often leads to confidence that they can commit these crimes and get away with them.
Most criminals are not idiots. Most criminals are aware that their actions are seen as wrong, both by other people and by the eyes of the law. However they continue to commit their crimes because they believe they are justified in their actions or believe they are deserving of the ends they achieve or quite simply they believe they can get away with it. The question this raises is whether or not thought control is something that would reduce this type of crime.
There is something I have said many times in reference to LGBT activism, and that is that legislation is only a fraction of the problem. Homophobia does not magically disappear when it is made illegal, it becomes more obscure, hidden, underground, and in some respects a lot more dangerous. A homophobe's mind and their thought process does not miraculously change because their view has been deemed offensive and the law prohibits them from expressing it or acting upon it; they still think the way they did before. Education is important in this regard to raise awareness of homophobia but as we have already shown above with the examples of theft and murder, teaching someone that something is wrong, will not necessarily stop them from doing it. You could even argue with some personality types telling someone that what they are doing is wrong will make them much more likely to do it but I digress.
What this all boils down to is the simple question, how do you change how people think? Is it even possible to exercise that degree of control at all? While classical conditioning can instil certain behaviours there is no evidence to show that the thoughts of disobeying ever disappear. In short, they may increasingly do what you say to a T, that does not mean they have stopped thinking the way they always did - it only means the reward they will receive for acting in the way you conditioned them to is deemed greater than the reward of pursuing their own thoughts; this is akin to behaviour through bribery. In many ways you can compare that to hypnotism - in that deep down the subject has to be willing to do it for it to work, if they really don't want to be hypnotised they will not be hypnotised.
With all this being true then the natural conclusion to draw is that prosperity should inversely correlate to levels of crime. In other words the more prosperous a place becomes, the lower its crime rate will become. Not because the citizens have found any great revelation of altruism or virtue but simply because the potential reward is not enough to warrant their actions. While that is a case of controlling behaviour, it does not control thought. When a great enough reward comes along the individual in question will commit that crime. The problem with that, if we use murder as an example is to say that every single person is a murderer for the right price - all you need to do is find the price. That's a little unsettling.
10 Things to know about me
1 - I'm Shy
A lot shyer than you might think. In person I am not as vocal as I am online and while this blog and my twitter gives you an insight into what is going on inside my head, very few people get that privilege face to face. The thing about my shyness you have to understand is that if I don't say much, that does not mean in any way that I am not interested or that I don't want to talk to you. If I don't want to talk to you I will tell you, which brings me on to number 2.
2 - I am to the point
I try to be as direct as I can be and that often results in a complete lack of tact or filter. I know when it's not appropriate to act in this way, but if you ask for my honest opinion on something don't expect me to sugar coat it for you. I know not a lot of people can handle this and to be honest not a lot of people can handle me, which brings me onto number 3.
3 - You have to want me in your life
I want people who want me in their life. If I don't want you in my life I will make that abundantly clear. If I do want you in my life I will put the effort in and I will do all I can to keep you in my life save for one thing - I will not stay where I am not wanted. You need to want me in your life as much as I want you in mine, and if you don't, then no matter how close you are to me I will walk away. I have done this before with many people. I do not have the energy to waste on people that don't care. Which brings me onto number 4.
4 - I care about people a lot
I form deep rooted sentimental attachments to people. The people that get close to me will be closer to me than anyone they have before. I know this because I have been told this many times. If I open up to you and let you get close to me, I will get close to you as a result, that's not a hard concept to grasp. It's simple Psychology. It might be counter intuitive to some people, like the fact that if you want someone to like you the easiest way is to ask them to do something for you - not do something for them. All this depends on how close I let you get, and that brings me on to number 5.
5 - I have trust issues
Relatively low down on this list yet this is one of the over arching themes that you will become acutely aware of the more you get to know me. I have some major trust issues and there are very good reasons for having them which I have alluded to but not outright said here on this blog. I tend to test the water with people when I first meet them, I will throw you in deeper and deeper, if you manage to swim each time then you'll make it to the deep end where you will know everything. Whether or not you can handle that will determine whether you stay, walk away or even run a mile. Which brings me on to number 6.
6 - I have been hurt
I have trusted the wrong people in the past and that hasn't helped me much, if anything it made things worse for a while. Nothing will make you close to the world faster than opening to someone and having them run a mile. This has happened to me in the past and while I like to think I have become a better judge of character over the years there are still those for whom curiosity overrides reality and they ask questions they aren't prepared to hear the answer to at all. An interest in Psychology has helped me develop my awareness of this behaviour. Which brings me onto number 7.
7 - I don't judge people, I observe
Save for the most extreme cases I will reserve judgement on anyone. I don't like to judge people because I know that your environment can be the complete opposite of your internal state. The people you are surrounded by, can be polar opposites to you. Even what you say and what you do won't always line up. For this reason I tend to observe people rather than judge. While I may appear quiet at times you should by no means assume that implies I am not thinking about anything because in most cases in reality that could not be further than the truth. Which brings me on to number 8.
8 - I am always thinking
I find it incredibly hard to switch off. I have been told by friends before that they can literally think about "nothing" - I can't even fathom that. I have never been able to achieve successful meditation, I have never been able to clear my mind. From the moment I wake to the moment I fall asleep I am thinking of something and even when I am asleep I am still thinking. Due to my Nystagmus I dream every night and I remember them clearly each morning, I have had lucid dreams and lucid nightmares. Switching off just is not an option for me, I wish it was. Thinking so much often results in me over thinking things which can lead to paranoia at times but it can also strengthen intuition. Which brings me onto number 9.
9 - I trust my instincts
I see patterns in things that other people don't and I tend to analyse those. I often end up making assumptions which I will admit are sometimes wrong, however my instincts are driven by what I perceive and my experience in the past. While many people would still consider me young I have been through a lot and in that time you learn a thing or two about deception and plain old bullshit. I can usually tell when people are lying to me, and I think a lot of people would be surprised by what I actually know they lied about to me. I choose my battles wisely, I know which things are worth confronting people over and I know which are just not worth the effort. Knowing someone is lying to you and knowing why are two different things however, and when you know the reason why they lie it can be easier to ignore. Which brings me onto the last in this list, number 10.
10 - I am arrogant but honest
I am under no illusion, I can be incredibly arrogant, I can be stubborn and I can be misguided. I try to be as honest as I can with people, admittedly I don't always tell the truth as I explained in a previous post, I know and understand that we are not completely honest all the time. There are times when it is prudent to lie and there are times when it is important to tell the truth. I am arrogant at times but that arrogance is born of confidence in myself. While many people will not associate that word with my behaviour and due to my shyness neither would I, there is a difference between outward and inward confidence. I am confident in myself, I know and understand my limits and I know who I am. When it comes to outward confidence the thing that holds me back the most is my lack of trust in people.
The more people that get close to me the more I open up. While you may read this blog and think I am quite open about who I am and what I think, the thing you have to remember is that you don't know me and you never will from reading this blog. You will only ever know my online person by reading these words. If you want to get to know the real me then you have to do just that - get to know me - and that requires having actual conversations with me and seeing what I am really like, because the image you have in your mind is most likely nothing like me.
A lot shyer than you might think. In person I am not as vocal as I am online and while this blog and my twitter gives you an insight into what is going on inside my head, very few people get that privilege face to face. The thing about my shyness you have to understand is that if I don't say much, that does not mean in any way that I am not interested or that I don't want to talk to you. If I don't want to talk to you I will tell you, which brings me on to number 2.
2 - I am to the point
I try to be as direct as I can be and that often results in a complete lack of tact or filter. I know when it's not appropriate to act in this way, but if you ask for my honest opinion on something don't expect me to sugar coat it for you. I know not a lot of people can handle this and to be honest not a lot of people can handle me, which brings me onto number 3.
3 - You have to want me in your life
I want people who want me in their life. If I don't want you in my life I will make that abundantly clear. If I do want you in my life I will put the effort in and I will do all I can to keep you in my life save for one thing - I will not stay where I am not wanted. You need to want me in your life as much as I want you in mine, and if you don't, then no matter how close you are to me I will walk away. I have done this before with many people. I do not have the energy to waste on people that don't care. Which brings me onto number 4.
4 - I care about people a lot
I form deep rooted sentimental attachments to people. The people that get close to me will be closer to me than anyone they have before. I know this because I have been told this many times. If I open up to you and let you get close to me, I will get close to you as a result, that's not a hard concept to grasp. It's simple Psychology. It might be counter intuitive to some people, like the fact that if you want someone to like you the easiest way is to ask them to do something for you - not do something for them. All this depends on how close I let you get, and that brings me on to number 5.
5 - I have trust issues
Relatively low down on this list yet this is one of the over arching themes that you will become acutely aware of the more you get to know me. I have some major trust issues and there are very good reasons for having them which I have alluded to but not outright said here on this blog. I tend to test the water with people when I first meet them, I will throw you in deeper and deeper, if you manage to swim each time then you'll make it to the deep end where you will know everything. Whether or not you can handle that will determine whether you stay, walk away or even run a mile. Which brings me on to number 6.
6 - I have been hurt
I have trusted the wrong people in the past and that hasn't helped me much, if anything it made things worse for a while. Nothing will make you close to the world faster than opening to someone and having them run a mile. This has happened to me in the past and while I like to think I have become a better judge of character over the years there are still those for whom curiosity overrides reality and they ask questions they aren't prepared to hear the answer to at all. An interest in Psychology has helped me develop my awareness of this behaviour. Which brings me onto number 7.
7 - I don't judge people, I observe
Save for the most extreme cases I will reserve judgement on anyone. I don't like to judge people because I know that your environment can be the complete opposite of your internal state. The people you are surrounded by, can be polar opposites to you. Even what you say and what you do won't always line up. For this reason I tend to observe people rather than judge. While I may appear quiet at times you should by no means assume that implies I am not thinking about anything because in most cases in reality that could not be further than the truth. Which brings me on to number 8.
8 - I am always thinking
I find it incredibly hard to switch off. I have been told by friends before that they can literally think about "nothing" - I can't even fathom that. I have never been able to achieve successful meditation, I have never been able to clear my mind. From the moment I wake to the moment I fall asleep I am thinking of something and even when I am asleep I am still thinking. Due to my Nystagmus I dream every night and I remember them clearly each morning, I have had lucid dreams and lucid nightmares. Switching off just is not an option for me, I wish it was. Thinking so much often results in me over thinking things which can lead to paranoia at times but it can also strengthen intuition. Which brings me onto number 9.
9 - I trust my instincts
I see patterns in things that other people don't and I tend to analyse those. I often end up making assumptions which I will admit are sometimes wrong, however my instincts are driven by what I perceive and my experience in the past. While many people would still consider me young I have been through a lot and in that time you learn a thing or two about deception and plain old bullshit. I can usually tell when people are lying to me, and I think a lot of people would be surprised by what I actually know they lied about to me. I choose my battles wisely, I know which things are worth confronting people over and I know which are just not worth the effort. Knowing someone is lying to you and knowing why are two different things however, and when you know the reason why they lie it can be easier to ignore. Which brings me onto the last in this list, number 10.
10 - I am arrogant but honest
I am under no illusion, I can be incredibly arrogant, I can be stubborn and I can be misguided. I try to be as honest as I can with people, admittedly I don't always tell the truth as I explained in a previous post, I know and understand that we are not completely honest all the time. There are times when it is prudent to lie and there are times when it is important to tell the truth. I am arrogant at times but that arrogance is born of confidence in myself. While many people will not associate that word with my behaviour and due to my shyness neither would I, there is a difference between outward and inward confidence. I am confident in myself, I know and understand my limits and I know who I am. When it comes to outward confidence the thing that holds me back the most is my lack of trust in people.
The more people that get close to me the more I open up. While you may read this blog and think I am quite open about who I am and what I think, the thing you have to remember is that you don't know me and you never will from reading this blog. You will only ever know my online person by reading these words. If you want to get to know the real me then you have to do just that - get to know me - and that requires having actual conversations with me and seeing what I am really like, because the image you have in your mind is most likely nothing like me.
Relationships and Experience
I have spoken about experience before, albeit mostly in the context of work or life experience. I have also spoke about relationships before and something crossed my mind. If you follow me on twitter you might have seen my thoughts on this.
The lack of ever having a relationship is something that for many people they see in themselves as a weakness or a negative. They think it makes them less desirable when looking for a potential partner. The thing I have come to realise is that this is not necessarily true. By virtue of the fact you are single and looking for someone else who is also single then you need to assert one thing - they are not in a relationship either.
However once you actually stop to think about that fact you begin to question the motivation for wanting someone else who has had a relationship as opposed to none at all and whether that really is an advantage. If you are single then there are 3 main possible scenarios - the first two are that either you have never had a relationship at all, or that you have had one or more relationships which all failed - the third possible scenario being one where you lost your other half.
While there are many reasons a relationship may come to its end, and the matter of whose fault it was if any, the fact that it was a relationship that failed can be asserted as it did not last. If it came to an end, it failed, no matter what the circumstances were. The only exception to that is the loss of a partner which ultimately can't be prevented. In all other circumstances either you, your partner, or both of you together would have found a way to make it work. That is incredibly simplistic I admit but before you argue based on whether or not a relationship with some people can never work I would argue the relationships where it could never work anyway should not happen in the first place. I say this because I do not deem "short term relationships" to be real relationships. You're fuck buddies with an emotional attachment that's all I see you as. If you enter into a relationship with the understanding that you will break up after a fixed period I don't consider that a real relationship. Likewise if you knowingly entered into a relationship with someone who was completely wrong for you and neither of you could ever have made it work then that is still a failed relationship.
To want to be with someone who has previously been in a relationship but is not anymore is therefore inherently a desire for someone who has had failed relationships. Someone who has never been in a relationship before does not automatically constitute someone who would have a better chance, but they do not constitute someone who would have a worse chance either. Lack of experience in this regard is not the weakness it is made out to be. Going further than this you can even assert that experience in and of itself is not beneficial without considering what was learnt.
The lack of ever having a relationship is something that for many people they see in themselves as a weakness or a negative. They think it makes them less desirable when looking for a potential partner. The thing I have come to realise is that this is not necessarily true. By virtue of the fact you are single and looking for someone else who is also single then you need to assert one thing - they are not in a relationship either.
However once you actually stop to think about that fact you begin to question the motivation for wanting someone else who has had a relationship as opposed to none at all and whether that really is an advantage. If you are single then there are 3 main possible scenarios - the first two are that either you have never had a relationship at all, or that you have had one or more relationships which all failed - the third possible scenario being one where you lost your other half.
While there are many reasons a relationship may come to its end, and the matter of whose fault it was if any, the fact that it was a relationship that failed can be asserted as it did not last. If it came to an end, it failed, no matter what the circumstances were. The only exception to that is the loss of a partner which ultimately can't be prevented. In all other circumstances either you, your partner, or both of you together would have found a way to make it work. That is incredibly simplistic I admit but before you argue based on whether or not a relationship with some people can never work I would argue the relationships where it could never work anyway should not happen in the first place. I say this because I do not deem "short term relationships" to be real relationships. You're fuck buddies with an emotional attachment that's all I see you as. If you enter into a relationship with the understanding that you will break up after a fixed period I don't consider that a real relationship. Likewise if you knowingly entered into a relationship with someone who was completely wrong for you and neither of you could ever have made it work then that is still a failed relationship.
To want to be with someone who has previously been in a relationship but is not anymore is therefore inherently a desire for someone who has had failed relationships. Someone who has never been in a relationship before does not automatically constitute someone who would have a better chance, but they do not constitute someone who would have a worse chance either. Lack of experience in this regard is not the weakness it is made out to be. Going further than this you can even assert that experience in and of itself is not beneficial without considering what was learnt.
Self Control
Here's a question: What requires more self control, going without something completely, or having it in moderation? Let's assume it is something pleasant and pleasurable for you. We can use Alcohol as an example. Excessive drinking leads to alcoholism and those who drink excessive amounts are often have an addiction to it. Does it require more self control to have alcohol in moderation or to abstain entirely?
Personally my view on this is that moderation is harder to maintain than abstinence. My reasoning for this is that having a stimulus given and removed periodically, causes periodic withdrawal. During withdrawal you crave that which has been taken away. After abstaining for a prolonged period of time, long enough for the withdrawal to pass, these cravings stop. In this scenario the only things that require avoidance or ignorance are the things we tend to associate with our stimulus. In the case of alcohol, this would be like certain foods we would eat or places we would go where we would ordinarily drink, as these would possibly trigger cravings. It is worth noting here that there is a psychological component and some people are a lot better at avoiding certain thoughts.
There isn't really an analogy I can think of that would apply to this specifically, however the comparison of moderation versus abstention can be compared to a slippery slope, or an ice covered hill, if you manage to reach the top and not move at all the likelihood of sliding to the bottom is a lot slimmer than trying to stay half way up the hill trying not to slide to the bottom. In that analogy finding your footing in the middle of the hill is a lot harder than standing still at the top. The temptation will remain for those at the top to step down and slide, at first that can be quite safe in small steps as you don't stray far from abstention, the top of the hill is always within reach so backing out is easy. The further you venture from it however the harder it becomes to reach it once again.
I've gone without caffeine since the start of the year. It wasn't really a New Year's resolution, I don't like making those as I usually break them. This was more of an experiment to see how long I could go without it, January 1st just happened to be an easy start date to measure it from. It's now 2 and a half months later and living without caffeine has proved interesting. There have been a few benefits, mainly the lack of headaches which were an almost daily occurrence at one point; I have also lost weight, which I was not expecting, in all honesty I was expecting the opposite to happen. However there have been a few downsides, the main downside that I have experienced is drowsiness. I don't mean to the point where I could pass out at any moment, but I do not feel entirely awake and I haven't for a while now. After the withdrawal symptoms passed I felt awake for a while but that soon passed.
Caffeine consumption causes physiological changes over time. It inhibits the receptors in your brain that cause you to feel tired or sleepy. As more of these receptors are inhibited the brain counteracts this by making more - which leads to caffeine tolerance, and leads a regular consumer to need higher doses to get the effect. The problem with this, is that when you stop taking caffeine, the number of receptors does not decrease. The increased number no longer being inhibited causes the feeling of tiredness. You can call this a caffeine dependency in a way, although that is a bit misleading it is still the best way to explain it for now.
My caffeine intake was quite high. Part of the reason for that was because I had sources of caffeine I did not realise contained it, and when the side affects such as the headaches occurred I was taking headache tablets [Andain Extra] which actually contained Caffeine - which I did not realise. The problem of feeling tired all the time now needs to be confronted and I am not sure how to do that. I am reluctant to reintroduce caffeine into my diet - I would much rather be at the top of the hill than trying to stay in the middle; make of that what you will re my self control. I am trying to find an alternative for now, what that well end up being I have no idea. If I have no other choice I will consider reintroducing caffeine.
Personally my view on this is that moderation is harder to maintain than abstinence. My reasoning for this is that having a stimulus given and removed periodically, causes periodic withdrawal. During withdrawal you crave that which has been taken away. After abstaining for a prolonged period of time, long enough for the withdrawal to pass, these cravings stop. In this scenario the only things that require avoidance or ignorance are the things we tend to associate with our stimulus. In the case of alcohol, this would be like certain foods we would eat or places we would go where we would ordinarily drink, as these would possibly trigger cravings. It is worth noting here that there is a psychological component and some people are a lot better at avoiding certain thoughts.
There isn't really an analogy I can think of that would apply to this specifically, however the comparison of moderation versus abstention can be compared to a slippery slope, or an ice covered hill, if you manage to reach the top and not move at all the likelihood of sliding to the bottom is a lot slimmer than trying to stay half way up the hill trying not to slide to the bottom. In that analogy finding your footing in the middle of the hill is a lot harder than standing still at the top. The temptation will remain for those at the top to step down and slide, at first that can be quite safe in small steps as you don't stray far from abstention, the top of the hill is always within reach so backing out is easy. The further you venture from it however the harder it becomes to reach it once again.
I've gone without caffeine since the start of the year. It wasn't really a New Year's resolution, I don't like making those as I usually break them. This was more of an experiment to see how long I could go without it, January 1st just happened to be an easy start date to measure it from. It's now 2 and a half months later and living without caffeine has proved interesting. There have been a few benefits, mainly the lack of headaches which were an almost daily occurrence at one point; I have also lost weight, which I was not expecting, in all honesty I was expecting the opposite to happen. However there have been a few downsides, the main downside that I have experienced is drowsiness. I don't mean to the point where I could pass out at any moment, but I do not feel entirely awake and I haven't for a while now. After the withdrawal symptoms passed I felt awake for a while but that soon passed.
Caffeine consumption causes physiological changes over time. It inhibits the receptors in your brain that cause you to feel tired or sleepy. As more of these receptors are inhibited the brain counteracts this by making more - which leads to caffeine tolerance, and leads a regular consumer to need higher doses to get the effect. The problem with this, is that when you stop taking caffeine, the number of receptors does not decrease. The increased number no longer being inhibited causes the feeling of tiredness. You can call this a caffeine dependency in a way, although that is a bit misleading it is still the best way to explain it for now.
My caffeine intake was quite high. Part of the reason for that was because I had sources of caffeine I did not realise contained it, and when the side affects such as the headaches occurred I was taking headache tablets [Andain Extra] which actually contained Caffeine - which I did not realise. The problem of feeling tired all the time now needs to be confronted and I am not sure how to do that. I am reluctant to reintroduce caffeine into my diet - I would much rather be at the top of the hill than trying to stay in the middle; make of that what you will re my self control. I am trying to find an alternative for now, what that well end up being I have no idea. If I have no other choice I will consider reintroducing caffeine.
Deaf Ears
"He who believes a lie will deny the truth even if it is screamed into his ear"
While that may sound a little melodramatic, it's not far from the truth in reality. If someone believes something, it can be very hard to invalidate that belief. Putting aside the debate of whether or not it is right to try in the first place let's just consider the scenario where someone holds a belief about you that is evidently untrue. You might argue that you wouldn't care what they think, that what other people think of you is none of your business, and while that in itself is another debate we can at least agree we care what the people we love think about us. For that reason sometimes you do care what someone else thinks of you, and a false belief can make you uncomfortable, or even cause you great upset.
How do you convince someone you are telling the truth when they believe a lie? That's not an easy question to answer because the answer relies on a number of variables that aren't easy to quantify, not least of all the level of trust the other person has in you. You can ask someone what they are thinking and they can tell you, but that relation is only ever a second hand experience. You can't experience their thoughts and feelings for yourself, you are entirely reliant on their ability to accurately communicate their mental state. Communication of things which are often mired in illogical conclusions such as the nature of emotion, can be incredibly hard to do. When you have no other reason for feeling something other than "I just do" - the inability to express a reason for that feeling does not magically negate it. You still feel that emotion even when you have absolutely no idea why, and even more so, when you know it's entirely illogical, or the opposite of what you should be feeling.
"How do you convince someone you are telling the truth when they believe a lie" - needs an addendum - "and how can you be sure you've actually convinced them when they say you have?" - as this flips the issue of trust back on ourselves. Do they trust us, becomes, do I trust them?
Fundamentally a relationship without trust will never build upon itself. It will crumble when pressure is applied. A strong foundation is needed for a relationship to last, and trust is the cornerstone of a strong foundation. Communication can build a relationship up, but if there is no trust, then what is communicated will be lost as those words fall on deaf ears. That does lead to the rather interesting conclusion that perhaps trust can actually be quantified by looking at exactly how much someone listens to you. If they take everything in that you say then they trust you completely. If they don't listen to a word you say and everything goes in one ear and out the other then arguably they don't trust you at all.
While that may sound a little melodramatic, it's not far from the truth in reality. If someone believes something, it can be very hard to invalidate that belief. Putting aside the debate of whether or not it is right to try in the first place let's just consider the scenario where someone holds a belief about you that is evidently untrue. You might argue that you wouldn't care what they think, that what other people think of you is none of your business, and while that in itself is another debate we can at least agree we care what the people we love think about us. For that reason sometimes you do care what someone else thinks of you, and a false belief can make you uncomfortable, or even cause you great upset.
How do you convince someone you are telling the truth when they believe a lie? That's not an easy question to answer because the answer relies on a number of variables that aren't easy to quantify, not least of all the level of trust the other person has in you. You can ask someone what they are thinking and they can tell you, but that relation is only ever a second hand experience. You can't experience their thoughts and feelings for yourself, you are entirely reliant on their ability to accurately communicate their mental state. Communication of things which are often mired in illogical conclusions such as the nature of emotion, can be incredibly hard to do. When you have no other reason for feeling something other than "I just do" - the inability to express a reason for that feeling does not magically negate it. You still feel that emotion even when you have absolutely no idea why, and even more so, when you know it's entirely illogical, or the opposite of what you should be feeling.
"How do you convince someone you are telling the truth when they believe a lie" - needs an addendum - "and how can you be sure you've actually convinced them when they say you have?" - as this flips the issue of trust back on ourselves. Do they trust us, becomes, do I trust them?
Fundamentally a relationship without trust will never build upon itself. It will crumble when pressure is applied. A strong foundation is needed for a relationship to last, and trust is the cornerstone of a strong foundation. Communication can build a relationship up, but if there is no trust, then what is communicated will be lost as those words fall on deaf ears. That does lead to the rather interesting conclusion that perhaps trust can actually be quantified by looking at exactly how much someone listens to you. If they take everything in that you say then they trust you completely. If they don't listen to a word you say and everything goes in one ear and out the other then arguably they don't trust you at all.
Ask yourself a question
Introspection is the act of analysing your own self, by thinking about what you think about, and by considering your behaviour and the range of emotions that you experience. Introspection often involves asking yourself questions that you would normally ask other people. Introspection is in essence self inspection.
Answering the questions we ask other people however is not always straight forward. Often the reason we ask other people questions in the first place is because we do not know the answer to begin with. This peculiarity is not only limited to the questions we ask but also the answers that we pose as possibilities; what we tell other people to do when they ask for our advice is generally what we think they should do, not necessarily what we would do. Nowhere is this more evident than when we ask ourselves a question and give an answer we would give other people, yet refuse the answer for ourselves, labelling it inadequate because after all, we're different.
Asking yourself a question in this regard ends up being more of a method of coping with our thought processes, and less about finding an actual answer. In other words every question we ask ourselves is a rhetorical question. We ask them out of self reassurance that we are aware of our actions, not because we actually believe we will gain any new understanding. You can turn around and ask why this happens and there is perhaps an explanation.
I have explained before how our conscious mind is somewhat limited and the bulk of our thoughts occur in our subconscious; with the conscious mind only being consulted when the subconscious needs extra information. You can look at that interaction and say that perhaps our subconscious is trying to process our behaviour and our thoughts and feelings and identifies things that we are doing which it thinks we shouldn't - things which contradict our beliefs - the actions that go against what we would tell others to do. Once identified, the presentation of that realisation is made to the conscious mind by suggesting we question ourselves. This is easily summed by imagining our subconscious mind asking our conscious "Are you aware this is what you are doing?" and our rejection of the advice we would give others as our conscious replying "Yes, I know, but I'm doing it anyway" - leaving the subconscious to ponder this.
What does understanding this achieve? Well in truth it does not change much other than to highlight self conflict which we may be in denial over. Realising this thought process might be what is taking place can allow you to realise that no matter how much you tell yourself you are fine with something, in reality, you're really not. You are conflicted and you are being hypocritical and often in situations like this the only time you will come to drop the pretence and accept that you were in denial, is when you experience great hurt. Pain so strong you can't ignore it. Emotion so deep that your heart takes over and says enough is enough.
Do we ask for this? The knee jerk reaction is to say no, but if you know what you are doing and you ignore your own beliefs and your own advice and do it anyway, are you not guilty of putting yourself in jeopardy? If you walk out into live traffic without looking, despite your thoughts and feelings telling you not to, is it your fault that you get run over or the fault of the driver?
Answering the questions we ask other people however is not always straight forward. Often the reason we ask other people questions in the first place is because we do not know the answer to begin with. This peculiarity is not only limited to the questions we ask but also the answers that we pose as possibilities; what we tell other people to do when they ask for our advice is generally what we think they should do, not necessarily what we would do. Nowhere is this more evident than when we ask ourselves a question and give an answer we would give other people, yet refuse the answer for ourselves, labelling it inadequate because after all, we're different.
Asking yourself a question in this regard ends up being more of a method of coping with our thought processes, and less about finding an actual answer. In other words every question we ask ourselves is a rhetorical question. We ask them out of self reassurance that we are aware of our actions, not because we actually believe we will gain any new understanding. You can turn around and ask why this happens and there is perhaps an explanation.
I have explained before how our conscious mind is somewhat limited and the bulk of our thoughts occur in our subconscious; with the conscious mind only being consulted when the subconscious needs extra information. You can look at that interaction and say that perhaps our subconscious is trying to process our behaviour and our thoughts and feelings and identifies things that we are doing which it thinks we shouldn't - things which contradict our beliefs - the actions that go against what we would tell others to do. Once identified, the presentation of that realisation is made to the conscious mind by suggesting we question ourselves. This is easily summed by imagining our subconscious mind asking our conscious "Are you aware this is what you are doing?" and our rejection of the advice we would give others as our conscious replying "Yes, I know, but I'm doing it anyway" - leaving the subconscious to ponder this.
What does understanding this achieve? Well in truth it does not change much other than to highlight self conflict which we may be in denial over. Realising this thought process might be what is taking place can allow you to realise that no matter how much you tell yourself you are fine with something, in reality, you're really not. You are conflicted and you are being hypocritical and often in situations like this the only time you will come to drop the pretence and accept that you were in denial, is when you experience great hurt. Pain so strong you can't ignore it. Emotion so deep that your heart takes over and says enough is enough.
Do we ask for this? The knee jerk reaction is to say no, but if you know what you are doing and you ignore your own beliefs and your own advice and do it anyway, are you not guilty of putting yourself in jeopardy? If you walk out into live traffic without looking, despite your thoughts and feelings telling you not to, is it your fault that you get run over or the fault of the driver?
Method to the Madness
Sometimes people say and do things that are irrational. Most of the time however our actions, our thoughts and our feelings are reasonable. Reasonable actions simply mean actions we can find a reason for; likewise unreasonable actions are simply actions for which we can find no reason for.
When we look at our behaviour and the behaviour of others we try to deduce the reason for those behaviours. A lot of the time our actions are misinterpreted in this respect and people deduce reason that is not even remotely related to our own. Take for example someone who does not have any serious relationships or commitments and chooses to sleep around having a string of one night stands. The conclusion that most people draw there is that these people fear commitment or that they are incapable of it. However that might not necessarily be the case. There are any number of reasons, for example one or more very bad relationships can lead people to be reluctant to ever want to even try again - like a divorcee who swears off marriage.
The point I am trying to make is that judging other people is fundamentally flawed by the fact that our judgement is limited to our own experience - first, second, and third handed. We forget that other people have lives. We forget this because processing this is something which we don't normally do. When we walk down a street we do not pay attention to every single thing going on around us - this would cause sensory overload. Our brains are selective in what they pay attention to. Likewise when we use a machine or some other object we don't think about what is actually happening inside, all we need to process is how to use it - that abstraction prevents us from cognitive overload. Abstraction is only broke down when we have a reason for needing to know how something works - a conscious choice out of curiosity is enough of a reason, even if we have no other motivation than just wanting to know.
We forget other people have lives because to consider it for every single person we meet or see would also cause cognitive overload. You will pass hundreds, maybe thousands of people daily, for some even millions. To know the life story of even one of those people can in itself take a lifetime. We don't seek to know someone's complete life story however we only seek to know the things that interest us or that concern us. When it comes to judging others for their actions the only thing that interests us in most scenarios is either what would motivate us to act in that way or the worst possible reason for acting in that way - in other words we focus on the negative.
In the example above of someone who sleeps around, my reasoning for it reflects this. The only thing that led me to that when I was younger was a fear of commitment. A fear that has long passed; the only reason now that would lead me to that would be the feeling that commitment causes me more harm than good - in other words if committing to someone leads to heartache then I would not blame anyone who sought a life without commitment.
Knowing someone's life story in itself is an interesting concept. I have lived a long life, and despite only being 26 I have been through a lot - some things I wish no-one would ever have to go through. I have experienced darkness that has left marks that will never fade and they cause me problems even to this day. I have seen light however and I have known love. To know all that I have been through would take as long as I have lived, and longer still to process it and come to understand it all. That's where abstraction comes into play. When you get to know someone, you don't need to know everything, you just need to know enough. How much you know about who a person was, does not determine the strength of a relationship - amicable or amorous. How much you know about who a person is, and who they will become, that is what will determine the strength of your relationship.
The past helps you know how a person got to where they are today but it is a story, nothing more. If you buy into the belief that your past determines your future then you become a prisoner of your past. You will never know anything more than what you knew and you will stop growing as a person. Some things are worth remembering, and some things are worth knowing, but some things are better left forgotten, the reason why should suffice.
When we look at our behaviour and the behaviour of others we try to deduce the reason for those behaviours. A lot of the time our actions are misinterpreted in this respect and people deduce reason that is not even remotely related to our own. Take for example someone who does not have any serious relationships or commitments and chooses to sleep around having a string of one night stands. The conclusion that most people draw there is that these people fear commitment or that they are incapable of it. However that might not necessarily be the case. There are any number of reasons, for example one or more very bad relationships can lead people to be reluctant to ever want to even try again - like a divorcee who swears off marriage.
The point I am trying to make is that judging other people is fundamentally flawed by the fact that our judgement is limited to our own experience - first, second, and third handed. We forget that other people have lives. We forget this because processing this is something which we don't normally do. When we walk down a street we do not pay attention to every single thing going on around us - this would cause sensory overload. Our brains are selective in what they pay attention to. Likewise when we use a machine or some other object we don't think about what is actually happening inside, all we need to process is how to use it - that abstraction prevents us from cognitive overload. Abstraction is only broke down when we have a reason for needing to know how something works - a conscious choice out of curiosity is enough of a reason, even if we have no other motivation than just wanting to know.
We forget other people have lives because to consider it for every single person we meet or see would also cause cognitive overload. You will pass hundreds, maybe thousands of people daily, for some even millions. To know the life story of even one of those people can in itself take a lifetime. We don't seek to know someone's complete life story however we only seek to know the things that interest us or that concern us. When it comes to judging others for their actions the only thing that interests us in most scenarios is either what would motivate us to act in that way or the worst possible reason for acting in that way - in other words we focus on the negative.
In the example above of someone who sleeps around, my reasoning for it reflects this. The only thing that led me to that when I was younger was a fear of commitment. A fear that has long passed; the only reason now that would lead me to that would be the feeling that commitment causes me more harm than good - in other words if committing to someone leads to heartache then I would not blame anyone who sought a life without commitment.
Knowing someone's life story in itself is an interesting concept. I have lived a long life, and despite only being 26 I have been through a lot - some things I wish no-one would ever have to go through. I have experienced darkness that has left marks that will never fade and they cause me problems even to this day. I have seen light however and I have known love. To know all that I have been through would take as long as I have lived, and longer still to process it and come to understand it all. That's where abstraction comes into play. When you get to know someone, you don't need to know everything, you just need to know enough. How much you know about who a person was, does not determine the strength of a relationship - amicable or amorous. How much you know about who a person is, and who they will become, that is what will determine the strength of your relationship.
The past helps you know how a person got to where they are today but it is a story, nothing more. If you buy into the belief that your past determines your future then you become a prisoner of your past. You will never know anything more than what you knew and you will stop growing as a person. Some things are worth remembering, and some things are worth knowing, but some things are better left forgotten, the reason why should suffice.
Bullshit
I have a friend who is a master at bullshit. He can know absolutely nothing about a subject and still convince you he knows it inside out. In many ways I hate this because it feels dishonest to me. It almost feels like cheating. It plays into the mantra "fake it until you make it" - which I think is quite weak as the more pressure and importance or reliance is placed on their knowledge the greater the consequences of the truth surfacing that they actually don't have a clue.
I will openly admit there are a lot of things I haven't got a clue about. When I was a kid my aspiration was to know everything there is to know about everything; as I grew I came to realise that wasn't possible so I settled for knowing a lot about the things that really interested me and a little about everything else where I could. It's that aspiration which has stayed with me that leads me to be inquisitive. I ask a lot of questions, some people would say too many - but I will stop if people ask me to, so I don't really consider that. I ask questions because I seek to understand as much as I can not just about random things but about people too.
To pretend you know everything I think is the mark of a dishonest person. If you portray the image of someone who knows everything and is incapable of admitting there is something they don't know, then by virtue of the fact it is not possible to know everything you are therefore a liar and ergo you are dishonest. Admitting you don't know something, in my eyes, is not a weakness.
The only time you ever distinguish between people who pretend and people who are genuine, is when they falter. Someone who is a master of bullshit can be quite convincing. Even when they trip up they will continue to twist and manoeuvre until they put themselves back in a light where they still hold the upper hand. Someone who is genuine however once met with an error in their logic will stop and think about it and question their understanding. They won't brush off what you pointed out, they will attempt to understand the fault you found and see if they can find a reason for it - in other words they allow you to see their thought process - that in itself is an act of openness and honesty.
This post was inspired by an article I read - nothing to do with my friend I might add, but something random that made me think of him - where someone said something they clearly did not understand. The language they used meant nothing even close to the message they were trying to convey. The point here is that language is not a great enigma, a dictionary is never far from reach, it takes all of 10 seconds to find out what a word actually means. I knew what they meant so I did not confront them on this, however a writer should really know better. I would dismiss it as a simple mistake but a quick glance at their other work left me with the conclusion that they were quite pretentious.
There are times when it is right to point out a mistake and there are others when you don't say anything because there is no need - doing so would only make you out to be condescending or patronising. There are others when you realise the person writing is a master of bullshit and there's nothing to be achieved by pointing it out.
I will openly admit there are a lot of things I haven't got a clue about. When I was a kid my aspiration was to know everything there is to know about everything; as I grew I came to realise that wasn't possible so I settled for knowing a lot about the things that really interested me and a little about everything else where I could. It's that aspiration which has stayed with me that leads me to be inquisitive. I ask a lot of questions, some people would say too many - but I will stop if people ask me to, so I don't really consider that. I ask questions because I seek to understand as much as I can not just about random things but about people too.
To pretend you know everything I think is the mark of a dishonest person. If you portray the image of someone who knows everything and is incapable of admitting there is something they don't know, then by virtue of the fact it is not possible to know everything you are therefore a liar and ergo you are dishonest. Admitting you don't know something, in my eyes, is not a weakness.
The only time you ever distinguish between people who pretend and people who are genuine, is when they falter. Someone who is a master of bullshit can be quite convincing. Even when they trip up they will continue to twist and manoeuvre until they put themselves back in a light where they still hold the upper hand. Someone who is genuine however once met with an error in their logic will stop and think about it and question their understanding. They won't brush off what you pointed out, they will attempt to understand the fault you found and see if they can find a reason for it - in other words they allow you to see their thought process - that in itself is an act of openness and honesty.
This post was inspired by an article I read - nothing to do with my friend I might add, but something random that made me think of him - where someone said something they clearly did not understand. The language they used meant nothing even close to the message they were trying to convey. The point here is that language is not a great enigma, a dictionary is never far from reach, it takes all of 10 seconds to find out what a word actually means. I knew what they meant so I did not confront them on this, however a writer should really know better. I would dismiss it as a simple mistake but a quick glance at their other work left me with the conclusion that they were quite pretentious.
There are times when it is right to point out a mistake and there are others when you don't say anything because there is no need - doing so would only make you out to be condescending or patronising. There are others when you realise the person writing is a master of bullshit and there's nothing to be achieved by pointing it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)