When I was younger I tried keeping a diary. I didn't get very far with it. I tried again over the years but the most I ever got to was a month. I kept a diary when I worked as a volunteer and some of the things in it are really interesting, not because of how I felt at the time but because of what happened later that completely changed the tone of the diary from happiness to delusion. Delusion caused by what I believe to be genuine support and assurance that was later found out to be false and ridicule. The whole experience now has left me quite unwilling to do anything for charities as a result.
What these diaries represent however is what they were intended to do, that is they documented my thoughts and feelings that I had at the time of writing. With all of these diaries however they were abandoned for many different reasons but the one thing they all shared was quite simply that I did not think what I had to write at the time would be relevant to me in the future and I did not think I would want to read them at all. While I have not followed through with any of my diaries or the journals I tried to keep as well, this blog on the other hand has lasted quite a bit. Even though it has had a few very distinct appearances over the years from the black and red darkness that it began with to the explosion of colour that was the tie dye background, up until today which is a lot more simplistic; and even though it has been purged a few times and brought back it's still managed to hang around.
The reason that is so remarkable for me is because my old diaries are long gone as are my journals. They were physical - admittedly a little more difficult to recover if you decide to get rid of them, nigh impossible depending on how you did it. This is digital, which is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Blessing in that they are more resilient in digital form, but a curse in that they are remarkably easy to lose forever. Paired with my diaries and journals there were hundreds of word documents I had written all of which were lost when one of my old computers crashed catastrophically. More still were lost in an accidental reformat of a hard drive I realised I had not backed up. The blogs however hang around a little longer for the simple reason that they are hosted on other services that are more redundant. This one is on blogger for example.
Blogger itself is interesting for me as this is not my first blog. I have had about 8 or 9, I can't remember them exactly now and I am sure I have probably missed a few. They all had different themes though except for this one. This one exists for me to write and nothing more. Apart from that there is no guaranteed theme to posts. They represent all the things that go through my head and the issues I want to share my thoughts and feelings on. They also serve indirectly as a diary. While I don't talk about specifics of my life on here as I would in a diary which is private, there are posts on here that allude to private thoughts and the connections and associations within them remain, to the point where I can read them and remember what was going on in my life at that moment in time. Likewise there are many posts that despite having no names or mention of specific people in them, are inexorably linked to them. There are poems about specific guys on here and posts about specific people and how their lives and circumstances inspired me to write.
My English teacher once told me to write, even if you think what you write is crap or to borrow her terminology "keek" then you still need to write. Even if you scrap it after you wrote it and start again you have to write and keep writing. The importance of writing is something that I have kept with me throughout my life thanks to her. It has stood by me through a lot because it is a form of self therapy, it is a an outlet for thoughts and feelings, it allows you to process grander thoughts that on their own would be too much to think about. It helps you work through things bit by bit and above all else it helps you to clear your mind of things that are bothering you, because once it is written and preserved you can stop thinking about things a lot easier than it is to do through will power alone.
The other thing that is important about writing is that it inspires you to read. That might not seem logical at first but I assure you the most well written people I know are also the most well read. Conversely the most well read I wish would write because the things that go on inside their heads are fascinating to me. If you are a writer you will be a reader, there is no denying that. Whether you read prose or if you stick to non fiction or publications you will be a reader. More so in recent years there is also the side of reading what people think which has become a lot easier with the likes of twitter. Whereas you would study peoples' behaviour before and learn through quiet observation, we now get to read what you actually think without leaving it to guesswork. There are a lot of writers on twitter and while many of them are there for promotion, if you look at how active they are on twitter they do read and reply to quite a bit.
The only other thing about writing I would add is something that has often been said about writing - that it is a socially accepted form of talking to yourself. This is true and I don't even know how to convey the importance of this but it really does help with processing your thoughts and feelings, especially those that go against the rest of your personality and cause you to be hypocritical in nature. To give those thoughts to a character that can vocalise them, which you can then contradict freely as another character helps to resolve internal self struggle.
Positive Pessimism
Being pessimistic is seen as negative and it is seen as being something that is generally associated with unhappy people. I refute that view for a number of reasons but the main reason is the most identifiable trait of a pessimist - that they expect the worst case scenario. It is wrongly assumed that most pessimistic people expect this scenario because it is what they want, this is not true, what we want and what we expect are two different things. If you always expect to get what you want then you're setting yourself up for misery.
The purpose of expecting the worst case scenario is not to be negative at all. The purpose is to be prepared and to be ready for that outcome. Being prepared for an outcome that never happens is not a bad thing. When you expect the worst case scenario, everything else becomes a positive. If you hold the middle ground like an optimist and expect the median or better then you cut the scope of your positivity. To the extreme the compliment of a pessimist is a perfectionist - who expects the best possible outcome; this drastically reduces the scope of their positivity.
If I have a random number generator that can pick numbers between 1 and 100, and offer you prizes of appropriate value associated with each number, with number 1 being the only one without a prize, then:
A pessimist will expect #1
An optimist will expect around #50 or above
A perfectionist will expect #100 with the best possible prize
In terms of probability of happiness we can then say:
The pessimist has a 99% chance of being happy and 1% chance of being indifferent, with 0% chance of disappointment. This is because they expect #1 so if they get it they will get what they were expecting therefore not be disappointed. Everything else is a positive therefore brings a degree of happiness.
The optimist has a 50% chance of being happy and a 49% chance of being disappointed and 1% chance of being indifferent. This is because #1 to #49 are less than they expected therefore bring disappointment, #50 is right where they expect, bringing indifference, and #51 to #100 inclusive bring something better than expected therefore bringing happiness.
The perfectionist is an odd one as they have no indifference, they are not happy with anything less than #100, but getting #100 makes them happy - as opposed to indifference of the others when they get what they expect. They therefore have a 1% chance of happiness and a 99% chance of disappointment.
The purpose of pessimism is not to want or desire negativity, it is simply to brace for it and prepare, everything else then becomes a positive. People think that pessimists lead unhappy lives, while I have down days no more than anyone else I would feel, I am generally a very happy person and can be quite content with what I have. I did say what you expect and what you want are two different things though, expecting negative outcomes is not to say that is what I want, far from it. I want what everyone else does - to grow and to experience new things and to have more than I have. The only difference is every little thing that improves is appreciated by a pessimist. Of course this also means that the worst possible outcome also affects their willingness to make a decision to the point where they become overly cautious and do not risk anything they are not prepared to lose.
Someone who expects negativity and wants negativity is not a pessimist. They're a cynic. A cynical mindset can be quite destructive.
To quote Oscar Wilde on the definition of a Cynic,
"A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."
To quote G B Stern on the importance of pessimism existing:
"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute."
Finally a quote from myself:
"Pessimism is not inherently a bad thing, you just need to recognise when it is holding you back and when you need to put it aside to move forward."
The purpose of expecting the worst case scenario is not to be negative at all. The purpose is to be prepared and to be ready for that outcome. Being prepared for an outcome that never happens is not a bad thing. When you expect the worst case scenario, everything else becomes a positive. If you hold the middle ground like an optimist and expect the median or better then you cut the scope of your positivity. To the extreme the compliment of a pessimist is a perfectionist - who expects the best possible outcome; this drastically reduces the scope of their positivity.
If I have a random number generator that can pick numbers between 1 and 100, and offer you prizes of appropriate value associated with each number, with number 1 being the only one without a prize, then:
A pessimist will expect #1
An optimist will expect around #50 or above
A perfectionist will expect #100 with the best possible prize
In terms of probability of happiness we can then say:
The pessimist has a 99% chance of being happy and 1% chance of being indifferent, with 0% chance of disappointment. This is because they expect #1 so if they get it they will get what they were expecting therefore not be disappointed. Everything else is a positive therefore brings a degree of happiness.
The optimist has a 50% chance of being happy and a 49% chance of being disappointed and 1% chance of being indifferent. This is because #1 to #49 are less than they expected therefore bring disappointment, #50 is right where they expect, bringing indifference, and #51 to #100 inclusive bring something better than expected therefore bringing happiness.
The perfectionist is an odd one as they have no indifference, they are not happy with anything less than #100, but getting #100 makes them happy - as opposed to indifference of the others when they get what they expect. They therefore have a 1% chance of happiness and a 99% chance of disappointment.
The purpose of pessimism is not to want or desire negativity, it is simply to brace for it and prepare, everything else then becomes a positive. People think that pessimists lead unhappy lives, while I have down days no more than anyone else I would feel, I am generally a very happy person and can be quite content with what I have. I did say what you expect and what you want are two different things though, expecting negative outcomes is not to say that is what I want, far from it. I want what everyone else does - to grow and to experience new things and to have more than I have. The only difference is every little thing that improves is appreciated by a pessimist. Of course this also means that the worst possible outcome also affects their willingness to make a decision to the point where they become overly cautious and do not risk anything they are not prepared to lose.
Someone who expects negativity and wants negativity is not a pessimist. They're a cynic. A cynical mindset can be quite destructive.
To quote Oscar Wilde on the definition of a Cynic,
"A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."
To quote G B Stern on the importance of pessimism existing:
"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute."
Finally a quote from myself:
"Pessimism is not inherently a bad thing, you just need to recognise when it is holding you back and when you need to put it aside to move forward."
What is the difference between a Robot and a slave?
If you had a robot that was completely autonomous and possessed an artificial intelligence that surpassed human intelligence, what would you get it to do for you? Assuming you could make it work all day and all night and do whatever you want, cooking and cleaning etc, what else would you get it to do?
If that robot has a fully developed artificial intelligence and is capable of understanding everything we say, is capable of doing everything we can do, and looks just like us, then at what point would you feel guilt about getting it to do anything for you? If you say no guilt at all because it is a machine and therefore not deserving of the same rights as humans then you put yourself into a rather awkward position.
The things most people would get a robot to do, are the same things that centuries ago, in some cases only decades - and in some countries to this day - people used slaves to do. To live with a servant that is not paid, does not have freedom of will, must do what you say, and above all else who you treat as inhuman, and undeserving of the same rights as you, is by definition a Master and their Slave.
The mental attitude you hold towards a robot is the same attitude that slavers held towards slaves - they do not recognise them as human. While the justification for this in terms of robots is because they are made from synthetic constructs crafted by man, if they can understand what you tell them, and they can think for themselves, and they are self-aware, then they are alive. Regardless of their origin. As our technology progresses, the closeness of android construction will become to human anatomy is inevitable.
At what point does it stop being something that mimics life, and becomes real life? Without accepting that humans have souls, you assert that we are no more than machines - incredibly complex machines created by nature through a process of evolution through natural selection - but still, just machines. The argument that we are organic and they are synthetic only holds true so long as they are made from synthetic materials - which in the long term is unsustainable. Natural construction would eventually replace synthetic construction. If a robot is to be durable it needs to be made from active materials that are going to regenerate in time, the only way to do that is to create constructions that use naturally occurring materials that it can grow itself. In plain English, robots will eventually be made of flesh and bone. We can already grow protein in a lab, to the extent that we can produce a burger with meat that was not taken from an animal, we will eventually have robots that are flesh and bone.
If that robot has a fully developed artificial intelligence and is capable of understanding everything we say, is capable of doing everything we can do, and looks just like us, then at what point would you feel guilt about getting it to do anything for you? If you say no guilt at all because it is a machine and therefore not deserving of the same rights as humans then you put yourself into a rather awkward position.
The things most people would get a robot to do, are the same things that centuries ago, in some cases only decades - and in some countries to this day - people used slaves to do. To live with a servant that is not paid, does not have freedom of will, must do what you say, and above all else who you treat as inhuman, and undeserving of the same rights as you, is by definition a Master and their Slave.
The mental attitude you hold towards a robot is the same attitude that slavers held towards slaves - they do not recognise them as human. While the justification for this in terms of robots is because they are made from synthetic constructs crafted by man, if they can understand what you tell them, and they can think for themselves, and they are self-aware, then they are alive. Regardless of their origin. As our technology progresses, the closeness of android construction will become to human anatomy is inevitable.
At what point does it stop being something that mimics life, and becomes real life? Without accepting that humans have souls, you assert that we are no more than machines - incredibly complex machines created by nature through a process of evolution through natural selection - but still, just machines. The argument that we are organic and they are synthetic only holds true so long as they are made from synthetic materials - which in the long term is unsustainable. Natural construction would eventually replace synthetic construction. If a robot is to be durable it needs to be made from active materials that are going to regenerate in time, the only way to do that is to create constructions that use naturally occurring materials that it can grow itself. In plain English, robots will eventually be made of flesh and bone. We can already grow protein in a lab, to the extent that we can produce a burger with meat that was not taken from an animal, we will eventually have robots that are flesh and bone.
Why are fun and games considered childish?
Have you ever heard the expression "They're having a second childhood" used to describe someone and their behaviour? If you have then it will most likely have been used in the context where the subject is doing something that is typical of childhood. This raises a question though as to what exactly constitutes being childish.
When I was a kid for example, games consoles were something that were reserved for the younger generation. Older people didn't play with them, partly I guess due to the fact that consoles had not been around that long but also due to a lack of interest from older people. As I have grown though the expectation that we will out grow these things has not materialised. Games consoles are as popular with the older generations as they are with younger gamers. However something strange has happened in terms of the games and their intended audiences. Many older gamers prefer older games, the games they played when they were younger, and new games that are intended for a younger audience - like Pokémon for example. Vice versa, the games that are intended for older gamers appeal more to younger gamers, like Grand Theft Auto. Now there are exceptions and this is by no means a certainty, it's just an observation that many people have made.
Going beyond games however there are many things that as we get older we look back on and want to do again. Things which people label as childish, interests in board games etc. While adult experiences like alcohol and sex often get combined with those games to become drinking games like Scrabble Shots and Drunk Chess etc this doesn't change the fact that at the core you're trying to recapture the feelings of your youth - most notably the fun of it. Yet there still exists this impression that doing so is seen as childish, escapism, and juvenile. Since when did we decide that being grown up meant that life wouldn't be fun anymore? The more you take the joy out of life and breed boredom and dissatisfaction the more resentful and ultimately depressing life becomes. You can work and play, there is a place for both in life.
We have more concerns as we grow older than we did when we were kids, there are many things we now have to think about that kids never have to; but that shouldn't mean that you need to abandon the way you looked at the world when you were younger. Growing old is not a choice, but acting old is. When you tire of life, life becomes tiring. When you are excited by life, life becomes exciting.
When I was a kid for example, games consoles were something that were reserved for the younger generation. Older people didn't play with them, partly I guess due to the fact that consoles had not been around that long but also due to a lack of interest from older people. As I have grown though the expectation that we will out grow these things has not materialised. Games consoles are as popular with the older generations as they are with younger gamers. However something strange has happened in terms of the games and their intended audiences. Many older gamers prefer older games, the games they played when they were younger, and new games that are intended for a younger audience - like Pokémon for example. Vice versa, the games that are intended for older gamers appeal more to younger gamers, like Grand Theft Auto. Now there are exceptions and this is by no means a certainty, it's just an observation that many people have made.
Going beyond games however there are many things that as we get older we look back on and want to do again. Things which people label as childish, interests in board games etc. While adult experiences like alcohol and sex often get combined with those games to become drinking games like Scrabble Shots and Drunk Chess etc this doesn't change the fact that at the core you're trying to recapture the feelings of your youth - most notably the fun of it. Yet there still exists this impression that doing so is seen as childish, escapism, and juvenile. Since when did we decide that being grown up meant that life wouldn't be fun anymore? The more you take the joy out of life and breed boredom and dissatisfaction the more resentful and ultimately depressing life becomes. You can work and play, there is a place for both in life.
We have more concerns as we grow older than we did when we were kids, there are many things we now have to think about that kids never have to; but that shouldn't mean that you need to abandon the way you looked at the world when you were younger. Growing old is not a choice, but acting old is. When you tire of life, life becomes tiring. When you are excited by life, life becomes exciting.
Opinions
Do you ever feel like you are expected to have an opinion on everything? Like "I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer. The admission that you don't know something is often seen as a weakness. The more people know something that you don't, the more you are made to feel like an idiot.
Intelligence is something that is hard to quantify. The original aim of IQ tests were to derive an intelligence quotient; this quotient was a measure of your mental age compared to your physical age. Your mental age was charted against that of your peers. The average would return a 100 point IQ anything less was deemed to be underdeveloped, and anything more was deemed to be overdeveloped. The aspiration was to have an IQ above 100.
The trouble with these tests both then and now is that intelligence is hard to actually measure. Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing. Just because you know a lot does not make you smart. Knowing pi to 5,000 places does not make you smart, it just means you have a good memory or you are using a mnemonic to help you.
So, what does make you intelligent? If we return to the world of computing and programming as I so often do in these posts, and return to the study of artificial intelligence, then we can look at the definition used there. In this context intelligence is marked by the ability to adapt to a new situation to achieve a goal. It can also include defining that goal where it has not been specified. If we apply that to humans then intelligence needs to be measured by placing people in a new situation and observing their behaviour. Give them a task they have never done before and evaluate their performance.
In this context, previous experience, although may be beneficial, does not imply a higher level of intelligence. Likewise all irrelevant knowledge no matter how abundant would also have no bearing. So if that's the case why do we still feel like an idiot when we don't know something, or why do other people try to make you feel that way?
Lack of knowledge and lack of an opinion should not constitute idiocy, nor should lake of experience imply incompetence. When you think about this in regards to employment, the traditional model of job description, application form, interview, offer and acceptance, are not at all suited to finding the ideal candidate. In reality the ideal model would be one that incorporated a practical element, where the candidate actually tries the work and is assessed based on their performance.
Intelligence is something that is hard to quantify. The original aim of IQ tests were to derive an intelligence quotient; this quotient was a measure of your mental age compared to your physical age. Your mental age was charted against that of your peers. The average would return a 100 point IQ anything less was deemed to be underdeveloped, and anything more was deemed to be overdeveloped. The aspiration was to have an IQ above 100.
The trouble with these tests both then and now is that intelligence is hard to actually measure. Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing. Just because you know a lot does not make you smart. Knowing pi to 5,000 places does not make you smart, it just means you have a good memory or you are using a mnemonic to help you.
So, what does make you intelligent? If we return to the world of computing and programming as I so often do in these posts, and return to the study of artificial intelligence, then we can look at the definition used there. In this context intelligence is marked by the ability to adapt to a new situation to achieve a goal. It can also include defining that goal where it has not been specified. If we apply that to humans then intelligence needs to be measured by placing people in a new situation and observing their behaviour. Give them a task they have never done before and evaluate their performance.
In this context, previous experience, although may be beneficial, does not imply a higher level of intelligence. Likewise all irrelevant knowledge no matter how abundant would also have no bearing. So if that's the case why do we still feel like an idiot when we don't know something, or why do other people try to make you feel that way?
Lack of knowledge and lack of an opinion should not constitute idiocy, nor should lake of experience imply incompetence. When you think about this in regards to employment, the traditional model of job description, application form, interview, offer and acceptance, are not at all suited to finding the ideal candidate. In reality the ideal model would be one that incorporated a practical element, where the candidate actually tries the work and is assessed based on their performance.
Vesting Authority
If a friend tells you not to use a particular brand of electronics, due to poor quality and a high risk of fire, you will most likely ignore them. There are a lot of factors that go into that decision but in most cases for most people we'll ignore them. If another friend a week later who is a fireman tells you not to use the same brand and reiterates the same reasons then you will be more likely to listen to them. This is because we associate authority with job roles. We think because it's their job they know more about it.
There is however something else at play here. If a friend who works in retail said the same thing again you would not be likely to listen. Even though in their job they might see a lot of complaints about their products, returns, or even product recalls. The fireman gets precedence because they are in a professional role. There is an assumption we make, whether we do so consciously or not, we think that professionals are less likely to be incompetent in their job. We think that they don't skive off, they don't cut corners, they are good at their job, and that they know everything about their work. Yet when you say this out loud you realise that sounds short sighted, and overly optimistic.
Ultimately the decision we make is defined by faith. We accept the authority of the people we have faith in. For those who are religious, who have faith in a higher power, for them there is no authority higher than that power. A little closer to the ground the same thing happens with the people whose authority we accept. We believe the fireman because we have faith in them, and believe that everything we said above is true. Except that's not objective faith, it's blind faith. It's blind because we don't question it. At the end of the day the jobs these people do, professional or not, are still jobs. It's an uncomfortable thought for us to have that Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen etc, can have a job they treat the way we treat our own. The way someone in an office can hate their job some days, can put off work, or do things they really don't want to. We have this idea with professional jobs this does not happen. Why? Some jobs can seem dangerous to us, but when it becomes routine, and you do it every day, you become desensitized and you eventually look at that job the same way you look at any other job.
I have worked in healthcare before, and when I did it opened my eyes to the humanity of the people that work within it. Your Doctor is a person like anyone else and their job will be like any other job, there will be days they love it and days they hate it. As for proficiency I care not to comment at this time, you can infer what you like from the tone of this post.
When you put faith in a professional, we can explain the reason why they get priority over others with simple maths. If you listened to the first friend, you would be putting faith in them and them alone. When you put faith in a professional you put faith in them, their manager, any professional body they belong to, and the organisation they work for. This hedges the faith you are placing on them across several other people. The problem I have with that is that you are having faith in people you have never met, likely never will meet, and know nothing about. In the case of the manager, they are just that, you should know from your own experience the varying efficiency and effectiveness of managers. Most are bad for the simple reason that they commit the cardinal sin of managing - that the people you manage have to do things your way - what works for you might not work for someone else, you need to recognise that to manage people effectively.
As for the professional body, with those in most cases you register and you rarely have any interaction with them. It can be years between contact and even then it can be trivial. The idea that a professional body actively monitors your work is misguided. As for the organisation they work for, in their case the manager is actually the one responsible for highlighting problems. Most organisations are ignorant to their staff's problems, and they are most ignorant to problems with management as the critique never makes it up the ladder of responsibility.
While it is possible to have faith in all of these people, the idea that being in a certain job gives you authority over the subject matter is flawed. "I should know, it's my job" is not a persuasive argument for me. It's anecdotal and as such should contribute no more to convincing me than someone's personal experience would be. There is the question of confidence that underlies all of this, that is to say that those who work in a given job become more confident in speaking about it, and we are more likely to believe someone who tells us something with confidence.
If you want me to listen to you then you will need to give me a reason to do so. Doing something as a job is not reason enough for me. If you are good at your job and understand what it is you do then you will be able to explain the reasoning behind what you tell me. If you can't explain why you should do something, that it's just something you have been told not to do, that isn't merit enough for me to listen.
There is however something else at play here. If a friend who works in retail said the same thing again you would not be likely to listen. Even though in their job they might see a lot of complaints about their products, returns, or even product recalls. The fireman gets precedence because they are in a professional role. There is an assumption we make, whether we do so consciously or not, we think that professionals are less likely to be incompetent in their job. We think that they don't skive off, they don't cut corners, they are good at their job, and that they know everything about their work. Yet when you say this out loud you realise that sounds short sighted, and overly optimistic.
Ultimately the decision we make is defined by faith. We accept the authority of the people we have faith in. For those who are religious, who have faith in a higher power, for them there is no authority higher than that power. A little closer to the ground the same thing happens with the people whose authority we accept. We believe the fireman because we have faith in them, and believe that everything we said above is true. Except that's not objective faith, it's blind faith. It's blind because we don't question it. At the end of the day the jobs these people do, professional or not, are still jobs. It's an uncomfortable thought for us to have that Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Firemen etc, can have a job they treat the way we treat our own. The way someone in an office can hate their job some days, can put off work, or do things they really don't want to. We have this idea with professional jobs this does not happen. Why? Some jobs can seem dangerous to us, but when it becomes routine, and you do it every day, you become desensitized and you eventually look at that job the same way you look at any other job.
I have worked in healthcare before, and when I did it opened my eyes to the humanity of the people that work within it. Your Doctor is a person like anyone else and their job will be like any other job, there will be days they love it and days they hate it. As for proficiency I care not to comment at this time, you can infer what you like from the tone of this post.
When you put faith in a professional, we can explain the reason why they get priority over others with simple maths. If you listened to the first friend, you would be putting faith in them and them alone. When you put faith in a professional you put faith in them, their manager, any professional body they belong to, and the organisation they work for. This hedges the faith you are placing on them across several other people. The problem I have with that is that you are having faith in people you have never met, likely never will meet, and know nothing about. In the case of the manager, they are just that, you should know from your own experience the varying efficiency and effectiveness of managers. Most are bad for the simple reason that they commit the cardinal sin of managing - that the people you manage have to do things your way - what works for you might not work for someone else, you need to recognise that to manage people effectively.
As for the professional body, with those in most cases you register and you rarely have any interaction with them. It can be years between contact and even then it can be trivial. The idea that a professional body actively monitors your work is misguided. As for the organisation they work for, in their case the manager is actually the one responsible for highlighting problems. Most organisations are ignorant to their staff's problems, and they are most ignorant to problems with management as the critique never makes it up the ladder of responsibility.
While it is possible to have faith in all of these people, the idea that being in a certain job gives you authority over the subject matter is flawed. "I should know, it's my job" is not a persuasive argument for me. It's anecdotal and as such should contribute no more to convincing me than someone's personal experience would be. There is the question of confidence that underlies all of this, that is to say that those who work in a given job become more confident in speaking about it, and we are more likely to believe someone who tells us something with confidence.
If you want me to listen to you then you will need to give me a reason to do so. Doing something as a job is not reason enough for me. If you are good at your job and understand what it is you do then you will be able to explain the reasoning behind what you tell me. If you can't explain why you should do something, that it's just something you have been told not to do, that isn't merit enough for me to listen.
Past, Present, and Future
The present and the future are probably the most important time periods we think about. We live in the present and it is here where we make all of our decisions that we live by. We make decisions we hope will prove to be wise investments. Our future is yet to come and within it we hope that we will gain a return on our investments. We hope that the decisions we made will make our future brighter. Some of us however make decisions without thinking about the future, living instead in the moment considering the present as the only certainty and therefore the only time period that matters.
Regardless of our outlook on the future and our opinion of the present, the decisions we make are ultimately based on our previous experiences. This makes the past arguably more important than the future, although still less important than the present as we can not change our past. Knowing and understanding our past however helps us understand the decisions we make and the reasons why. Knowing this can help us avoid repeating past mistakes, and in some cases it can help us build upon past success.
What we need to keep in mind however is that the present is not just here and now. While our perception in this moment of the present is here and now, the present as a time period is eternal. Every single moment we live is in the present. Every single decision we ever made and ever will make is done in the present. It is never ending. We forget this a lot when we look forward and when we look back. We often consider the future as something to worry about when it comes and we often criticise our past or judge it by what we now know. To do so is wrong however. What you know now and the standards you have established should not be applied retrospectively. Information that you have now gained that you did not have at the time should not make you feel guilt or elation for the decisions you made unknowingly. You should judge your past only by what you knew in the past.
You should not judge the past by the standards of the present. You should not judge your past self for liking things you now hate, or for hating things you now like. Likewise your future yet to come will bring more changes. The person you are today is not the same person you were a year ago and it won't be the same person you will be a year from now. We live every day and our experiences shape how we feel, what we want, and what we learn. What we know is fluid, ever changing. Things which were important to us then will disappear from our minds completely when they are no longer important.
I would like you to try a simple exercise to make you think about this. Without cheating or finding prompts to do so, write down in a list the name of everyone who was in your class in your first school. At the time you would have known everyone's name, over the years that have passed since you parted ways the people you had freidnships with and relationships that lasted beyond those days will be at the forefront of your memory and they will likely fill your list first. The people you had little interaction with or who you never saw again after parting ways will be gone. You can try picturing your classroom and the layout where everyone sat. The people that mattered to you who you remember will be in their seats, the others will likely be empty.
We retain the most important memories in our shallow minds. Information which is not important is either lost completely or it is archived within our deep minds, where it will only surface when prompted - usually by reading their name in the example exercise above. This apparent sense of memory completely disappearing can be somewhat disturbing at first especially if you find the exercise very difficult.
Do not be alarmed though because this is natural. It is not possible to retain all memories of everything we ever experienced. We do not have the storage capacity in our shallow minds. Our brains need to make the decision inevitably as to what is important and what isn't. There are things you will never forget but you will never remember without a prompt; like files on a hard drive you need to have an idea of what you are looking for in order to find them. Albeit with most computers you can browse those hard drives, it is not as easy to browse our memories. There are techniques which can be used to make this possible, you can read about them if you like, I would suggest Tricks of the Mind by Derren Brown, he gives a brief overview of these techniques in the sections dealing with memory.
There are many abilities we possess as humans that are innate. Processes that happen without conscious effort. Selection of memory that is and is not important is one of those abilities. While it can be nice to explore nostalgia and remember our past, you should stop and consider whether it is worth remembering something which you have apparently forgotten. Our minds deem these things unimportant for a reason, think about whether you trust its judgement before trying to override it.
Regardless of our outlook on the future and our opinion of the present, the decisions we make are ultimately based on our previous experiences. This makes the past arguably more important than the future, although still less important than the present as we can not change our past. Knowing and understanding our past however helps us understand the decisions we make and the reasons why. Knowing this can help us avoid repeating past mistakes, and in some cases it can help us build upon past success.
What we need to keep in mind however is that the present is not just here and now. While our perception in this moment of the present is here and now, the present as a time period is eternal. Every single moment we live is in the present. Every single decision we ever made and ever will make is done in the present. It is never ending. We forget this a lot when we look forward and when we look back. We often consider the future as something to worry about when it comes and we often criticise our past or judge it by what we now know. To do so is wrong however. What you know now and the standards you have established should not be applied retrospectively. Information that you have now gained that you did not have at the time should not make you feel guilt or elation for the decisions you made unknowingly. You should judge your past only by what you knew in the past.
You should not judge the past by the standards of the present. You should not judge your past self for liking things you now hate, or for hating things you now like. Likewise your future yet to come will bring more changes. The person you are today is not the same person you were a year ago and it won't be the same person you will be a year from now. We live every day and our experiences shape how we feel, what we want, and what we learn. What we know is fluid, ever changing. Things which were important to us then will disappear from our minds completely when they are no longer important.
I would like you to try a simple exercise to make you think about this. Without cheating or finding prompts to do so, write down in a list the name of everyone who was in your class in your first school. At the time you would have known everyone's name, over the years that have passed since you parted ways the people you had freidnships with and relationships that lasted beyond those days will be at the forefront of your memory and they will likely fill your list first. The people you had little interaction with or who you never saw again after parting ways will be gone. You can try picturing your classroom and the layout where everyone sat. The people that mattered to you who you remember will be in their seats, the others will likely be empty.
We retain the most important memories in our shallow minds. Information which is not important is either lost completely or it is archived within our deep minds, where it will only surface when prompted - usually by reading their name in the example exercise above. This apparent sense of memory completely disappearing can be somewhat disturbing at first especially if you find the exercise very difficult.
Do not be alarmed though because this is natural. It is not possible to retain all memories of everything we ever experienced. We do not have the storage capacity in our shallow minds. Our brains need to make the decision inevitably as to what is important and what isn't. There are things you will never forget but you will never remember without a prompt; like files on a hard drive you need to have an idea of what you are looking for in order to find them. Albeit with most computers you can browse those hard drives, it is not as easy to browse our memories. There are techniques which can be used to make this possible, you can read about them if you like, I would suggest Tricks of the Mind by Derren Brown, he gives a brief overview of these techniques in the sections dealing with memory.
There are many abilities we possess as humans that are innate. Processes that happen without conscious effort. Selection of memory that is and is not important is one of those abilities. While it can be nice to explore nostalgia and remember our past, you should stop and consider whether it is worth remembering something which you have apparently forgotten. Our minds deem these things unimportant for a reason, think about whether you trust its judgement before trying to override it.
An Unlikely Role Model
Growing up in the 90s and early 00s as a closeted Gay guy there weren't many positive Gay role models on television in the UK. Gay people tended to be stock characters provided for comedic effect. They often epitomised flamboyance or were overly camp. As for closeted Gay characters there were none for me to relate to.
There was one TV show that turned out to be a source of strength for me however, one that didn't have any Gay characters at all. As a young Gay man coming to terms with his sexuality yet keeping it a secret that I couldn't tell anyone, or at least felt I couldn't tell anyone, I found a lot of comfort in a show called Sabrina The Teenage Witch. This show unintentionally paralleled the life of a closeted Gay man. Sabrina discovers she is a witch just as she turns 16, but quickly learns that it is something that she has to keep secret. While I was quite a bit younger when I discovered my sexuality, I learned very quickly it was something I was best to hide.
Throughout the series Sabrina learns more about her magic, the other realm - the whole other world of magic, the portal to which is inside a closet - as well as the difficulties in her relationship and friendships that are caused by her keeping a secret she can't share. In one episode she actually says "I wanna come out of the linen closet" - and still the allegory was unintentional. There are a lot more elements to this but I think I have proved my point for now.
What I'm trying to demonstrate with all this is that although we have come a long way, we still have a media which lacks relatable Gay characters that aren't walking talking stereotypes. Most young Gay men looking for positive role models look to the Internet to find them. The trouble with that is the problem with the Internet in general - a lot of things get exaggerated and blown out of proportion for the sake of grabbing attention. There is a degree of control exerted over traditional media in terms of selecting what is portrayed, couple that with the fact that a number of prominent people in the media are actually Gay, you are left asking yourself why are Gay characters still comic relief or stereotypical? As much as I hate the word, where are the "normal" Gay guys?
Defining Reassurance
When someone believes a lie, you can scream the truth in their ear and they won't hear you. That's quite poignant but it has a message that rings true, people will only change their mind on any given subject if they want to change their opinion. If they don't want to then no amount of logic or reasoning will ever convince them of anything other than what they believe.
That distinction is hard to identify. Mostly because it's quite ambiguous when someone genuinely wants to change their mind versus insincere open mindedness - the false projection of someone who is open minded, when in reality they only accept a position they deem to be defensible, they have no concern for logic and whether their position is - for lack of a better word - the 'right' position. This is an inadequate description because right and wrong are subjective but the meaning is still conveyed.
The problem with all of this stops being a personal one when it starts impacting the lives of others. The easiest example of this is a relationship where one partner gets an idea into their mind that they can't shake and they seek reassurance from the other. When someone believes something that is not true, convincing them otherwise will only work if they are willing to change their mind. If they aren't willing to change their mind then there is nothing in this instance that the other can say that will alleviate their concerns.
What this makes us realise is that reassurance is not given to us from someone else at all. Reassurance is a perception that triggers a change in thought. Reassurance is therefore an abstract concept like colour, it's a perception that is unique to you and can never be shared. If you are concerned about something, and you seek reassurance from your partner and you then feel relief, what is actually happening here is that you have asked them to give you something to perceive, you then make the choice whether or not to change your thought process as a result. In practice what this means is that the perception in and of itself is empty and meaningless. Reassurance if you actually want it, has to come from within. Ultimately you are the one who decides to change your mind, it has nothing in practice to do with your partner.
You can in some ways bring this down to an issue of authority and subsequently responsibility. You ask your partner for reassurance because you want to shift the authority of the decision to change your mind onto someone else, and subsequently the responsibility for any and all repercussions and consequences that result. If you are naturally authoritative therefore we can conclude that you would not ask for reassurance at all, you would just make the change in your thought process and accept responsibility for it yourself. If you are naturally submissive then you will seek reassurance pretty much all the time because you will second guess everything you do. This causes a slight disparity between partners in a relationship. The authoritative partner needs to realise what is happening and extend their authority over the submissive partner and accept responsibility when it is requested through reassurance. If they don't then the submissive partner will stagnate in their thought process and end up going around in circles.
If two authoritative partners get together, there may be power struggles if one attempts to extend their authority over the other partner when it is not wanted. If they respect each other's boundaries then two authoritative partners can have a relationship in this model. Likewise an authoritative and submissive pairing can work too if the realisation is there.
Two submissive partners however poses a few major problems, first and more glaring is the issue of who makes decisions if neither one is willing to accept the responsibility of doing so. If two submissive partners are in a relationship and one partner seeks reassurance and does not get it from the other, the natural response here is that the cause of their worry will fester and grow.
I must point out here, authoritative and submissive in this context refers to the social interaction between partners, there is no inference of sexual roles in this model.
The key point I want to make here is that if you are an authoritative partner, you need to recognise whether your partner is too or if they are submissive. If they are submissive and they seek reassurance then you need to recognise that as a prompt, requesting authority.
That distinction is hard to identify. Mostly because it's quite ambiguous when someone genuinely wants to change their mind versus insincere open mindedness - the false projection of someone who is open minded, when in reality they only accept a position they deem to be defensible, they have no concern for logic and whether their position is - for lack of a better word - the 'right' position. This is an inadequate description because right and wrong are subjective but the meaning is still conveyed.
The problem with all of this stops being a personal one when it starts impacting the lives of others. The easiest example of this is a relationship where one partner gets an idea into their mind that they can't shake and they seek reassurance from the other. When someone believes something that is not true, convincing them otherwise will only work if they are willing to change their mind. If they aren't willing to change their mind then there is nothing in this instance that the other can say that will alleviate their concerns.
What this makes us realise is that reassurance is not given to us from someone else at all. Reassurance is a perception that triggers a change in thought. Reassurance is therefore an abstract concept like colour, it's a perception that is unique to you and can never be shared. If you are concerned about something, and you seek reassurance from your partner and you then feel relief, what is actually happening here is that you have asked them to give you something to perceive, you then make the choice whether or not to change your thought process as a result. In practice what this means is that the perception in and of itself is empty and meaningless. Reassurance if you actually want it, has to come from within. Ultimately you are the one who decides to change your mind, it has nothing in practice to do with your partner.
You can in some ways bring this down to an issue of authority and subsequently responsibility. You ask your partner for reassurance because you want to shift the authority of the decision to change your mind onto someone else, and subsequently the responsibility for any and all repercussions and consequences that result. If you are naturally authoritative therefore we can conclude that you would not ask for reassurance at all, you would just make the change in your thought process and accept responsibility for it yourself. If you are naturally submissive then you will seek reassurance pretty much all the time because you will second guess everything you do. This causes a slight disparity between partners in a relationship. The authoritative partner needs to realise what is happening and extend their authority over the submissive partner and accept responsibility when it is requested through reassurance. If they don't then the submissive partner will stagnate in their thought process and end up going around in circles.
If two authoritative partners get together, there may be power struggles if one attempts to extend their authority over the other partner when it is not wanted. If they respect each other's boundaries then two authoritative partners can have a relationship in this model. Likewise an authoritative and submissive pairing can work too if the realisation is there.
Two submissive partners however poses a few major problems, first and more glaring is the issue of who makes decisions if neither one is willing to accept the responsibility of doing so. If two submissive partners are in a relationship and one partner seeks reassurance and does not get it from the other, the natural response here is that the cause of their worry will fester and grow.
I must point out here, authoritative and submissive in this context refers to the social interaction between partners, there is no inference of sexual roles in this model.
The key point I want to make here is that if you are an authoritative partner, you need to recognise whether your partner is too or if they are submissive. If they are submissive and they seek reassurance then you need to recognise that as a prompt, requesting authority.
Burden
I can be quite direct with people. While some people respect that, others can find it hard to deal with. The thing is though, I am comfortable with who I am and I don't want to change that. One of the things that I have struggled with in my life is that I take things personally and I tend not to let things go easily. What goes hand in hand with that is the trait of being vocal about my thoughts and feelings. Despite being shy at first, those who get passed that initial barrier get to know the real me, uncensored and unfiltered. The problem comes when there are things that for most people are better left unsaid, but for me, I struggle to realise that is the case.
How do you know when it is right to hold back? While some people have a fear of opening up, I find myself more often gripped by the fear of bottling up. This fear, as they so often are, is based on experience and more importantly the negative outcomes that went with that experience. I bottled up many things when I was younger and they led to me falling apart inside while I smiled on the outside for the world to see. The struggle there was real and I carried a weight on my shoulders every day that I blamed other people for but ultimately that weight was my own, I chose to carry it and deny anyone the opportunity to share the load. When I eventually did open up the relief I felt caused a happiness I had never felt before, despite the nature of the burden I had shared.
The fear of sharing your burden like this is that you anticipate the other person will feel the weight and drop it and run the other way. When they don't, and they actually stay by your side and help you carry it, that creates a bond between you that will never be broken. Even if you stop speaking at some point for whatever reason, what they did for you will stay with you, no matter how mad you are at them or upset. For those that drop the weight and run the other way they cause distrust and they nourish your fear making it grow. In many ways the positivity I have gained from those that helped me carry my burden became addictive; to the point where the fear of holding anything back began to grow. When your burden has been lightened you fear the possibility of it being made heavy once again. This causes a desire to be as open as you can, even if that means losing people, because you would rather have people who will stand by you than people who would run at the first sign of struggle. It is inevitable that life will make our burden heavier, we do not need to add to it ourselves too.
I am aware however that this is selfish. The expectation that everyone must help you carry your burden is incredibly selfish. Even if you intend to help them carry theirs it does not change the fact that you expect them to carry yours in return. Not everyone is capable of carrying the same amount. Our strengths both mentally and emotionally are limited just like our physical strength and just like our physical strength, what we have trained to lift will affect how much we can handle. If you have this expectation you consign yourself to a fate where only those who are strong can stay in your life. That's not exactly fair however. It's also self destructive and encourages isolation and loneliness the heavier your burden become which in turn creates an ever increasing cycle of stress and anxiety that will ultimately break you. This is because the heavier your burden becomes the less people there are who can handle that weight. To borrow a phrase from a friend, the more intense you become the less people there are who can handle that intensity.
What is the solution then? Well the only solution I can see is something which I have forgotten how to do - hold back. Hold back on those who can not handle the weight, and open to those who can. Do not expect everyone to be able to help you carry your burden, or even help you at all. Allow people in your life who you know could not handle what you carry but never share that with them. This does pose a problem with honesty however. You would have to either hide it completely which will require deception, or admit there is a burden but not share what it is - this is difficult as most people will not accept that you can not tell them something for their own good, and they will want you to, even if they can't handle it; they'll want to try and carry it, even if the weight is too much.
I have forgotten how to hold back, but I think I need to learn again. I have come to the realisation that fear can paralyse people, even when it stands in the way of something they want, the fear of losing something they never had to begin with is less than the fear of what it might mean. This creates a barrier that they cannot overcome because they can't see beyond it.
There is a darker question still, which has been haunting me for a while. That is, can you ever release someone of your burden? How can you take it back if you think they can't handle it anymore? Is that even possible? Some things are best forgotten but they are often the things that are hardest to forget. The hardest part of forgetting the things I have shared is that they are so integral to who I am that short of forgetting me entirely, I fear there's nothing I can do. I really don't like saying goodbye to people. People come and go that's a fact of life. Some enter our lives just for a while and others stay for quite a bit longer. People change, that's a fact of life. Sometimes you grow apart, sometimes one grows too fast or too little. Sometimes you don't change at all, the real you just becomes more visible and that's something they can't handle or vice versa. The question though, is whether it is better to part, or fall apart...
How do you know when it is right to hold back? While some people have a fear of opening up, I find myself more often gripped by the fear of bottling up. This fear, as they so often are, is based on experience and more importantly the negative outcomes that went with that experience. I bottled up many things when I was younger and they led to me falling apart inside while I smiled on the outside for the world to see. The struggle there was real and I carried a weight on my shoulders every day that I blamed other people for but ultimately that weight was my own, I chose to carry it and deny anyone the opportunity to share the load. When I eventually did open up the relief I felt caused a happiness I had never felt before, despite the nature of the burden I had shared.
The fear of sharing your burden like this is that you anticipate the other person will feel the weight and drop it and run the other way. When they don't, and they actually stay by your side and help you carry it, that creates a bond between you that will never be broken. Even if you stop speaking at some point for whatever reason, what they did for you will stay with you, no matter how mad you are at them or upset. For those that drop the weight and run the other way they cause distrust and they nourish your fear making it grow. In many ways the positivity I have gained from those that helped me carry my burden became addictive; to the point where the fear of holding anything back began to grow. When your burden has been lightened you fear the possibility of it being made heavy once again. This causes a desire to be as open as you can, even if that means losing people, because you would rather have people who will stand by you than people who would run at the first sign of struggle. It is inevitable that life will make our burden heavier, we do not need to add to it ourselves too.
I am aware however that this is selfish. The expectation that everyone must help you carry your burden is incredibly selfish. Even if you intend to help them carry theirs it does not change the fact that you expect them to carry yours in return. Not everyone is capable of carrying the same amount. Our strengths both mentally and emotionally are limited just like our physical strength and just like our physical strength, what we have trained to lift will affect how much we can handle. If you have this expectation you consign yourself to a fate where only those who are strong can stay in your life. That's not exactly fair however. It's also self destructive and encourages isolation and loneliness the heavier your burden become which in turn creates an ever increasing cycle of stress and anxiety that will ultimately break you. This is because the heavier your burden becomes the less people there are who can handle that weight. To borrow a phrase from a friend, the more intense you become the less people there are who can handle that intensity.
What is the solution then? Well the only solution I can see is something which I have forgotten how to do - hold back. Hold back on those who can not handle the weight, and open to those who can. Do not expect everyone to be able to help you carry your burden, or even help you at all. Allow people in your life who you know could not handle what you carry but never share that with them. This does pose a problem with honesty however. You would have to either hide it completely which will require deception, or admit there is a burden but not share what it is - this is difficult as most people will not accept that you can not tell them something for their own good, and they will want you to, even if they can't handle it; they'll want to try and carry it, even if the weight is too much.
I have forgotten how to hold back, but I think I need to learn again. I have come to the realisation that fear can paralyse people, even when it stands in the way of something they want, the fear of losing something they never had to begin with is less than the fear of what it might mean. This creates a barrier that they cannot overcome because they can't see beyond it.
There is a darker question still, which has been haunting me for a while. That is, can you ever release someone of your burden? How can you take it back if you think they can't handle it anymore? Is that even possible? Some things are best forgotten but they are often the things that are hardest to forget. The hardest part of forgetting the things I have shared is that they are so integral to who I am that short of forgetting me entirely, I fear there's nothing I can do. I really don't like saying goodbye to people. People come and go that's a fact of life. Some enter our lives just for a while and others stay for quite a bit longer. People change, that's a fact of life. Sometimes you grow apart, sometimes one grows too fast or too little. Sometimes you don't change at all, the real you just becomes more visible and that's something they can't handle or vice versa. The question though, is whether it is better to part, or fall apart...
Self Acceptance
This post is not an attempt to garner pity, it's just the way I feel at the moment and like many of my posts I am writing it so that I can process my feelings and share them with the world.
Many people say that when you date you have very high expectations when you are younger or high standards and that the older you get the lower the standards get as you compromise more in an effort to "settle" for Mr Good enough as opposed to Mr Right.
I should point out I am referring to relationships here not sex specifically as with sex the opposite tends to be true especially in the Gay community - i.e. start slutty and become more reserved as you age. I also note that not everyone is the same and there will always be exceptions.
For me however in regards to potential partners my expectations have gone up with age rather than down. I am worried about what that will mean for me. I don't like referring to them as "standards" but it is the convention so I will observe it. The reason my standards have gone up with age is because I've accepted myself more as I have got older. I have a lot of issues, and I can't pretend anymore that I can handle them alone because I can't.
When I am on my own I get by with my issues. When you introduce other people though you need to be sure they can handle them too. I used to be naive and think I could be with someone and forget everything. That is unrealistic. My issues do cause problems and they affect trust and communication which are the cornerstones of any relationship.
I've come to accept that I'm not an easy person to love and I'm not an easy person to handle. I am hard work and although I don't think of myself as being high maintenance, I can see why others would think I am.
As negative as all this sounds, I don't mean it to be so, not at all. The truth is right now I feel indifferent, not happy or sad. This is quite numbing.
I give much more than I get with people though. As much as I am hard work and as much devotion you would need to be with me you would get far more in return. I am one of the kindest most caring people you will ever meet. Nicknamed bleeding heart by some, my compassion is often my undoing. I can see both sides of most arguments and I am not unreasonable. I play devil's advocate quite a bit too.
Those who have got close to me have told me they are closer to me than anyone else in their lives, family included. I am open and honest and I am easy to talk to, easy to get along with, and easy to confide in. I know when to shut up and listen.
I know who I am though. I know what I have been through and how it has shaped me as a person. I know the scars I carry and I know the pain I still feel. I used to think that anyone with time and effort could handle that. I was wrong and many people have shown me that. There have been those that walked away early, those that made it far but both left in the end. There too have been those that have managed to stay in my life despite all they know and how hard it has been they have stood by me. In an ideal world I would be with them. For various reasons that will never be. Which I am okay with. Even if I had the opportunity now I would not take it. That ship has sailed.
The reason I wrote this post is because I have come to the conclusion that if I ever find a guy to be with and for it to work out then he'll have to be one helluva guy. Very few could handle what I have been through. Right now that feels very unlikely. Which makes me feel sad, but it's something I will just have to accept.
I wish I hadn't been through all that I have. I wish I was normal. My life would be so much easier. I don't want this to be the reason I am single for the rest of my life. I fear it will be though. I don't use the word alone here because I'm not alone, and I am not lonely. I have friends that I love and they love me. I've also said goodbye or parted ways not so amicably with a few. I harbour no resentment however because as arrogant as it may sound, it was their loss not mine.
If you love someone and they walk away, don't feel sad about losing them, if they truly loved you they would have stayed; feel pity for them instead, for they have lost someone who loved them, and in the end that's a greater loss.
I retain hope that one day I'll meet someone who makes me believe and restores my faith. Right now I've lost my way. It feels like I will be single forever and I don't know how to feel about that.
Many people say that when you date you have very high expectations when you are younger or high standards and that the older you get the lower the standards get as you compromise more in an effort to "settle" for Mr Good enough as opposed to Mr Right.
I should point out I am referring to relationships here not sex specifically as with sex the opposite tends to be true especially in the Gay community - i.e. start slutty and become more reserved as you age. I also note that not everyone is the same and there will always be exceptions.
For me however in regards to potential partners my expectations have gone up with age rather than down. I am worried about what that will mean for me. I don't like referring to them as "standards" but it is the convention so I will observe it. The reason my standards have gone up with age is because I've accepted myself more as I have got older. I have a lot of issues, and I can't pretend anymore that I can handle them alone because I can't.
When I am on my own I get by with my issues. When you introduce other people though you need to be sure they can handle them too. I used to be naive and think I could be with someone and forget everything. That is unrealistic. My issues do cause problems and they affect trust and communication which are the cornerstones of any relationship.
I've come to accept that I'm not an easy person to love and I'm not an easy person to handle. I am hard work and although I don't think of myself as being high maintenance, I can see why others would think I am.
As negative as all this sounds, I don't mean it to be so, not at all. The truth is right now I feel indifferent, not happy or sad. This is quite numbing.
I give much more than I get with people though. As much as I am hard work and as much devotion you would need to be with me you would get far more in return. I am one of the kindest most caring people you will ever meet. Nicknamed bleeding heart by some, my compassion is often my undoing. I can see both sides of most arguments and I am not unreasonable. I play devil's advocate quite a bit too.
Those who have got close to me have told me they are closer to me than anyone else in their lives, family included. I am open and honest and I am easy to talk to, easy to get along with, and easy to confide in. I know when to shut up and listen.
I know who I am though. I know what I have been through and how it has shaped me as a person. I know the scars I carry and I know the pain I still feel. I used to think that anyone with time and effort could handle that. I was wrong and many people have shown me that. There have been those that walked away early, those that made it far but both left in the end. There too have been those that have managed to stay in my life despite all they know and how hard it has been they have stood by me. In an ideal world I would be with them. For various reasons that will never be. Which I am okay with. Even if I had the opportunity now I would not take it. That ship has sailed.
The reason I wrote this post is because I have come to the conclusion that if I ever find a guy to be with and for it to work out then he'll have to be one helluva guy. Very few could handle what I have been through. Right now that feels very unlikely. Which makes me feel sad, but it's something I will just have to accept.
I wish I hadn't been through all that I have. I wish I was normal. My life would be so much easier. I don't want this to be the reason I am single for the rest of my life. I fear it will be though. I don't use the word alone here because I'm not alone, and I am not lonely. I have friends that I love and they love me. I've also said goodbye or parted ways not so amicably with a few. I harbour no resentment however because as arrogant as it may sound, it was their loss not mine.
If you love someone and they walk away, don't feel sad about losing them, if they truly loved you they would have stayed; feel pity for them instead, for they have lost someone who loved them, and in the end that's a greater loss.
I retain hope that one day I'll meet someone who makes me believe and restores my faith. Right now I've lost my way. It feels like I will be single forever and I don't know how to feel about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)