Schrodinger's revenge

[jay]

Interesting to note how friends, partners, people-in-general shift during difficult periods... especially noteworthy when there's a sharp difference between gently chiding or supportive one-on-one discussions and a seemingly-harsher line taken by the same folks in public spaces. One senses attempts to play off both sides in a dispute... or perhaps an unwillingness to burn bridges.

Nonetheless, I've certainly noted who my friends have been -- and haven't been, at least not openly -- in this recent flap. Other folks say that they may like me, but they're unwilling to trust me unless I promise to communicate the manner they prefer? Fine, but that statement cuts two ways... my own trust-assessments have certainly been adjusted downward recently for some people, upward for others. The chestnut about difficult times differentiating between true friends and those posing as such has some validity, unfortunately. Likewise the one about Schrodinger's cat... containers have been opened. One way or the other...

Comments

Noodle, schmoodle

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

[Note: I know this is your journal, and there will be no hard feelings from me if you choose to delete this comment. I am not posting any flames, nor do I have any desire to fight with you about recent events. I'm just musing on my own motives behind the things I've said to you, in private and public, about this issue:]

When I say "It's hard for me to trust you if I know that you are consciously presenting a facade during some of our interactions," I don't see that as an attempt to coerce you into behaving how I prefer. I just see it as straightforward feedback about how your behavior affects my feelings about you.

Lately, I have the impression that people's negative reactions to your explanation of how you behaved on the list (I'm nomail at the moment, so I haven't followed the thread lately, only what has ended up here), is that you might feel painted into a corner, like you are giving up something of yourself if you change anything about your interaction style as a result of this series of events. Speaking only for myself, I can empathize with feeling piled on, and digging in even further because of it. However, I sometimes find that those protective impulses (and I think they're *legitimate* and *protective* impulses, so please don't read that as saying they're bad in themselves) just simply don't get me what I want, which is to have people around me who know I can be counted on to be myself, and to fight fair. If that's one of the things you want, you might consider letting down some of your defenses and acknowledging that you have been deliberately hurting the people you might want to count as friends some time in the future. (And if you have no desire to have any of the people in your online communities as friends, I'm not clear on why you're there.)

Lastly, I saw where you said that others get away with sarcasm/irony and you don't. I think the difference is that those others, when they're misunderstood, don't crow about how they've had so much fun being someone they're not, and are now sitting back having even more fun watching people get upset about how they've been played.

Take this unsolicited commentary for what it's worth. Or not. Up to you.

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

First of all, today's LJ entry wasn't meant as an opportunity for delayed comments to Wednesday's no-comments posting -- I asked for feedback by email.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the constructive tenor and tone of your remarks.

I think the difference is that those others, when they're misunderstood, don't crow about how they've had so much fun being someone they're not, and are now sitting back having even more fun watching people get upset about how they've been played.

Hmmm... my original, apparently button-pushing quote from 4/15 was: "And there's a certain puzzle-solving fun, too... watching to see who, if anyone, on a given group, will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations). I suppose that's a bit arrogant, but otherwise I'm easily bored... "

Which I didn't feel was crowing. More like "is anyone actually reading me for content? And will they bother to ask me 'do you really mean X?' if I seem to say something strange?" Granted, this put the communication burden on the reader to notice something awry and ask me, rather that my communicating in advance that I'm being tongue-in-cheek.

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[trinker.livejournal.com]

It was this line: will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations). I suppose that's a bit arrogant, but otherwise I'm easily bored... that set my teeth on edge. It seemed very "flaunting superiority", very "mocking the stupid", very "are you worthy of my words".

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Really? Wow. (not sarcastically) "a bit arrogant" refers to inconveniencing others by my employing an exception-based (others have to notice and ask) rather than an opt-in (I flag what I'm doing in advance) approach. If I unilaterally shift that burden to others, even defensively, that's adding to their communications-processing load. Any self-imposed inconvenience to others is a bit arrogant, as I see it. Perhaps "a bit impolite" or "a bit selfish" would have been better wording choices. Hmmm...

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Yeah, "a bit selfish" would have been less teethgrinding, for me.

Also the bit about "bored" made it sound like you were using the possible befuddlement of others for entertainment value.

And "will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations)" made it sound like "unless they're too lazy to do so", or made it seem like the problem was willful lack of care on the part of the reader rather than something that was possibly two-way, or even all about how you phrased something. Makes it seem like people are expected to poke at your words for all possible meanings, and come up with the right one (mindread).

This really bothers me, because it's this sort of thing, I think, that lead to the whole "indirect communication requires mindreading on the part of the recipient, and is passive aggressive misdirection on the part of the sender" discussion.

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I can see that the juxtaposition of "puzzle-solving fun" at the beginning with "bored" at the end could have easily given that impression, and I apologize for that. Mailing list readers aren't lab rats.

"easily bored" refers not to some entertainment value in others' befuddlement (which is generally frustrating, not fun or a puzzle), but self-amusement in trying different modes of speech, different styles and attitudes, even different personas. Inwardly, not externally-focussed. I *would* be easily bored if I had to always communicate in a painfully sober, clear, serious fashion. I do lots of that at work already...

Rather than expecting mindreading, I'd usually hope that someone would ask for clarification if they saw something strange or button-pushing, rather than rushing to the worst possible interpretation... the latter pattern has led to frustration on my part, expressed above.

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[trinker.livejournal.com]

If you were still interested in trying to smooth the waves (I don't know that you should be, given that some might already be set in their attack stance), it might be helpful to calve off that first paragraph ("I can see....lab rats." ;) and put that in a separate journal entry.

Thank you for articulating that. It's that specific point that was getting to me, and I wasn't part of the mailing list discussion that spawned all this.

The part about "easily bored" not being about others' befuddlement is also a good clarification. You might bear in mind that playing with your expression, while enjoyable, can get in the way of clear communication. It's a lesson I had to learn, and learned badly, when I was in high school.

The shifts in style can lead to a sort of "cried wolf" thing, where people are less willing to work at understanding, because it's all going to change soon, anyway. I would hope that the enjoyment of a group discussion would come from the sensation of learning about others, and sharing one's own thoughts, rather than from the very self-contained joys of trying on expressive styles as if they were costumes.

Does this make sense to you?

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Really? Wow.

Since that surprises you, I think it may be worthwhile for me to add that I had the same reaction to that line as trinker did. (And trinker and I come from distinctly different communication styles, so if we both misread it in that way, I'm guessing others will have done the same).

Re: Noodle, schmoodle

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

[About your first point, you had comments enabled for this entry, and it is what I was responding to, but again, it's really fine with me if you delete it.]

Hmmm... my original, apparently button-pushing quote from 4/15 was: "And there's a certain puzzle-solving fun, too... watching to see who, if anyone, on a given group, will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations). I suppose that's a bit arrogant, but otherwise I'm easily bored... "

Which I didn't feel was crowing. More like "is anyone actually reading me for content? And will they bother to ask me 'do you really mean X?' if I seem to say something strange?" Granted, this put the communication burden on the reader to notice something awry and ask me, rather that my communicating in advance that I'm being tongue-in-cheek.


I think I can see where you're coming from. I guess if I were you, I would take a break from the practice of expecting others to ask you what you mean, and just say what you mean for a while, even if what you mean is sarcastic and/or humorous. And maybe overexplain for a while. Not forever, but just long enough for people to get a feel for your ability to deal in a caring manner with your peers. But of course I'm not you, much to what I imagine is your delight. :-)

[sisterfish125.livejournal.com]

Brian:
I'm sorry I wasn't there to support you in your time of great stress.
I have a load of stuff on my plate right now, and it is my opinion that a half-assed opinion isn't worth squat when compared to one with the full thought process behind it, especially when it's a heated discussion. That's why I kept out of things--I didn't want to cloud the underlying issues.

I hope things are settling down for you, and that you can find some peace.
Jen

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

You've had far more important things to deal with... life-and-death issues, as well as the DNA training.

In any case, I count lack-of-response as neutral, and it neither increases or decreases my trust of that person in the future. The only exception is when someone has first-hand knowledge of something that would support me, or deflect another's accusations, and that person knows of the dispute but refuses to say what they know. That I interpret as indirectly supporting the other side, and a significant negative. But that's not relevant to you... :-).

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I've not been involved in any of these recent discussions, but I have - in my own time - noticed that even people who love me very much can sometimes get carried away by the discussion and forget to be kind at the same time. It can be a constant process of negotiation and meta-communication. Of course, some relationships are worth this much effort...

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Agreed, on both counts... this was an issue between myself and a sweetie recently, but we reached an understanding as regarding the interpretation of each other's statements (and double-checking offline...).

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

containers have been opened. One way or the other...

Often, long-term, that's a good thing. I very much like knowing who my friends are, although the process of finding out can hurt quite a bit sometimes.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Sort of a stress-test... I think I agree with you, over the long term, even if shifting assessments adds to the short-term chaos. But probably better to know now than be unexpectedly betrayed later.

[7patches.livejournal.com]

attempts to play off both sides in a dispute... or perhaps an unwillingness to burn bridges.

I don't think those are necessarily bad things, especially of one is not directly involved in the dispute, wants to understand everybody's point of view, and wants to stay friends with everybody.
Of course, friendship can only continue if there is trust, and that is a fragile thing.