Heading home...
Jan. 3rd, 2004 11:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayBusily packing now, leaving for the airport in an hour, landing around 8pm at SFO. I've been wondering if my email is broken... large numbers of email queries are going without replies. We will just get a taxi or something from the airport home...
Perhaps indicative is that nearly all of the unanswered email this week (not just about rides, but in general) was addressed to various members of a given local social circle, in varying contexts... sigh. I suppose I should have expected as much, given some interactions last week.
Perhaps indicative is that nearly all of the unanswered email this week (not just about rides, but in general) was addressed to various members of a given local social circle, in varying contexts... sigh. I suppose I should have expected as much, given some interactions last week.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-03 08:47 am (UTC)And sometimes it's not only not all about you, but it's not at all about you. I know that I'm not happy about my lax habits in keeping up with people over the last 2 weeks given all the fuss and bustle that comes at the end of the year.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-03 08:55 am (UTC)I have the keys to your van and your van is at your place. I need to figure out a way to get it to you then...will have to work something out with other people.
Reminder: I have no working cellphone still, so communications will be have to be arranged otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 06:07 pm (UTC)I am still surprised and grateful regarding your bringing the van back to SFO yesterday... I wanted urgently to find out whether it was still near House Dreamland in SF, or in the South Bay. Once we talked on the phone yesterday and I found out that the latter was the case, that was what I needed to know. I made other arrangements then, never dreaming that you'd go that far out of your way to return it to the airport. Thanks, again!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-03 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 06:08 pm (UTC)WARNING: more unasked-for coaching
Date: 2004-01-03 01:25 pm (UTC)Brian, I am about THIS close to taking a vacation from your assumptions like this. It's very wearing, even when they're not (I don't believe) aimed in my direction. I'm tired of trying to talk you out of your own negative self-image and worldview.
Suggestion (take it or leave it, as you will):
For a week or two, try just THINKING the self-deprecating thoughts. DON'T actually write them in your journal. I'm beginning to think that they ARE pathetic attempts at attention-getting, and our responding "no you're not!" (or whatever the appropriate reaction is) is simply feeding this negative cycle for you. You presume nobody wants you around, you say so, in the most pathetic way possible, and it MAKES nobody want you around because it's no fun to interact with someone you have to convince is worth the air he's breathing. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
As I've said before, your deductive skills are excellent. AND in the realm of personal relationships you make unsupported leaps that cause trouble for yourself. Try making some unsupported leaps in the other direction. Try FIRST assuming that there's some other problem that could be causing this break in communication. Or at least try ASKING folks if that's what's up, before stating your fears that they just don't want you around. And while you're at it, OWN that they are FEARS. DON'T label them as expectations (which is what you did above).
(And yes, I AM in a pissy mood--why do you ask? ;^)
Let me know if you need me to model how that might have looked in writing.
Re: WARNING: more unasked-for coaching
Date: 2004-01-04 05:55 pm (UTC)The point about expectations vs. fears is a good one -- you're right, I tend to label my fears as expectations in discourse. Changing the original entry's writing to I suppose I should have feared as much, given some interactions last week. is better -- it correctly places the locus at my response (fears) rather than imputing other people's actions (expectations). In some sense, I suppose that I defensively tend to assume the worst (from my frame of reference) of other people's intentions, then correct my model upward when their actions don't match. Rather than the converse -- which
For a week or two, try just THINKING the self-deprecating thoughts. DON'T actually write them in your journal.
As far as my allegedly pathetic attempts at attention-getting go... look at my journal over the *previous* two weeks. How much self-deprecation do you see? Arguably 12/27 refers to it, but as something that happened earlier in the week, offline. Before that... I don't see anything particularly self-negative until the post-Dickens cringe entry on 12/1. It isn't a daily (or weekly) occurrence! I have been working hard on doing what you currently suggest since the summer, thought I'd made progress, and apparently you (at least) haven't noticed.
our responding "no you're not!" (or whatever the appropriate reaction is) is simply feeding this negative cycle for you.
I was not trying to get others to baby me. Only to answer their email, as I was under time pressure. If I'd left out the speculation as to causes, I'd have been fine. And it worked, in the sense of getting a response from four of the five individuals.
at least try ASKING folks if that's what's up
Okay... but how does one ASK directly, when the other folks aren't responding? A breakdown in communications was the issue here. How do I ask others if something else was the cause of the communications break, if there's a communications break? Definitionally.
you say so, in the most pathetic way possible
Oh, come on. Show me that in the post here, or even others recently. Not in some other post from last spring/summer. It feels to me like you are venting, like you have a lot of pent-up anger and frustration towards me -- perhaps from other interactions offline? -- which is overflowing here... otherwise, I can't make sense of your reactions.
And yes, I AM in a pissy mood--why do you ask? ;^)
Duly noted... generally speaking, I highly value your advice and even coaching. And appreciate the time and effort spent. However, this time for me the useful stuff gets masked by the perceived venting...
Mea Culpa, and apologies for the tone (part 1)
Date: 2004-01-04 08:26 pm (UTC)*blushes* I do regret that, Brian. I probably should have been better about not responding when feeling... well, pretty much anything! As you well know, I get into the most trouble that way. ;^)
And yes, much of the heat behind my response has absolutely nothing to do with the post here. It has to do with the fact that I perceive this to be the same or similar behavior to what ended up hurting ME a great deal in our other electronic interactions in the past couple of weeks.
Here's how it looks from my perspective. You see something you think is a pattern, and you apparently form all sorts of hypotheses and judgments about it. You then act on those hypotheses as if they are the truth, without (in my perception), adequately cross-checking. The ability to form quick hypotheses with a minimal amount of data is an excellent one in your work life, or in any realm where data is predominant. However, in my experience, it's less useful and potentially damaging in the social realm, where interactions with people predominate. Taking extra time to check things out is almost always a good idea. (Taking extra time before posting something emotional is DEFINITELY a good idea! ;^)
I was not trying to get others to baby me.
I never claimed you were. I said I thought that this was potentially feeding a negative cycle for you. And in fact I didn't say that I was SURE of this--just that I was "beginning to think" that it was. For 100% accuracy, I should have said that I was beginning to think it MIGHT be the case.
If I'd left out the speculation as to causes, I'd have been fine.
Exactly my point. Why did you need to speculate about the cause? THAT is where I see the potentially self-fulfilling prophecy cropping up. That is the part I'm suggesting you leave out of your posts, etc.
I said: at least try ASKING folks if that's what's up
You said: ...How do I ask others if something else was the cause of the communications break, if there's a communications break? Definitionally.
Ask OTHERS. Cross-check. Try OTHER methods of communication, if one fails. As far as we can see here, you tried e-mail, and no other method. (I don't know, BTW, if that's true, but that's all I had to base things on.) Don't assume that the reason for the communications breakdown is because someone is mad at you, or doesn't want to be with you. You might have (in no particular order, and certainly not an exhaustive list) IMed me for info, called me on my cell phone, called
Believe me, I get how frustrating such a communications breakdown can be, when you're under time pressure and traveling. We spent an extra hour or more at the airport in September because of a similar communications snafu. It wasn't your distress at the breakdown I was reacting to, but only your attributing that breakdown to ill-will on someone else's part.
Re: Mea Culpa, and apologies for the tone (part 1)
Date: 2004-01-05 12:40 pm (UTC)(smile) I think I know you well enough to recognize venting vs. advice... besides, I get myself into trouble that way arguably more often still, as you've alluded, so I'm hardly going to throw stones. Living in a Glass house, especially...
Thanks for clearing up the source of your ire, I had been mystified by the response proportional to the original post. I would be happy to meet offline and discuss the previous weeks, and you could then be as snarky as you felt like ;^).
Here's how it looks from my perspective...
That's pretty close, not surprising given your insightfulness. My proceeding without cross-checking... I have always operated on the basis that I could run with unproven facts or assertions as long as they didn't obligate anyone else to anything. But what you seem to be saying is that I'm sort of negatively-obligating others, when they hadn't asked for it.
Try OTHER methods of communication, if one fails.
Good point... ultimately,
Re: Mea Culpa, and apologies for the tone (part 1)
Date: 2004-01-06 08:47 am (UTC)Yes, I think this is the problem. In running with unproven assertions in this case, you CREATE the very environment you are AFRAID of seeing. Seeing it, you then claim this as "evidence" and conclude your original hypothesis was correct. Not necessarily so.
Try OTHER methods of communication, if one fails.
Good point... ultimately, hopeforyou saw the above post and called me. I had actually tried IMs to a couple of people... and I have no phone numbers for any of the Observatory folks, none for anyone other than your cell and the main House Dreamland number. I have no idea how to contact Laura, similarly. That local group may be incredibly interconnected internally, but I'm barely connnected to it
I dunno. Maybe it's my sheer bloodymindedness, but it feels to me like you barely got started with all the various possibilities for contacting these folks. Certainly LJ was a good last-ditch effort. IMing is good. But w/regard to not being connected yourself, well, I suppose you can cling to that. But in fact you ARE connected to ME, and you know very well that I am connected to the larger circle. You make plenty of other assumptions--why not assume that someone can get you in contact with those you need to be in contact with? You may not be in contact with
I gotta go spend some time with Akien. More later if you wish.
Mea Culpa, and apologies for the tone (part 2)
Date: 2004-01-04 08:28 pm (UTC)It was the accumulation of such posts/expressions, in various fora, over time, INCLUDING spring/summer that had me wondering. I'm sorry if I seemed to ignore hard-fought progress on your part. I didn't mean to belittle your efforts, and I'm sorry it came across that way.
FWIW, it wasn't simply posts in YOUR journal to which I referred however--it was stuff I saw in other journals, in other media, and some of the interactions that I heard about (yes, my bad for going--even partially!--on hearsay) in recent weeks. So while there isn't much of this in YOUR journal per se, there is more there in a general way, and it was to that I referred.
"I suppose I should have feared as much, given some interactions last week" is better
Well... better, but still missing the point to some degree. The issue is the word "should." Why SHOULD you have feared that? There's still an expectation lurking in there. To eliminate that expectation, you might try reframing it as:
"Given that most of the unanswered mail is from a particular household, I'm afraid that this communication breakdown might be due to some interactions we had in the past week."
That's all about your fear in this case, and contains no expectation of rejection. (Have I communicated this clearly? Let me know if I'm still being unclear here.) IMO you really don't need to even jump to that FEAR, but at least in that version you aren't EXPECTING to be treated poorly.
OK, the lovely
Re: Mea Culpa, and apologies for the tone (part 2)
Date: 2004-01-05 01:01 pm (UTC)Actually, given your choice of adjectives used, in a public post in my journal... it was beginning to feel to me like one of those interactions last spring/summer with certain unnamed others.
When I'm self-deprecatory in my journal, I'm almost never looking for sympathy, or "there-there" responses. It perplexes me when readers feel obliged to jump in to dispute some passing self-humbling remark. I'm only expressing how I feel at that particular moment, not requesting that others take some action (or pay attention). And getting it off of my chest, by putting those negative feelings into words, often helps me begin feeling better. Maybe I should think to disable comments... although some of the self-deprecation is done unconsciously.
yes, my bad for going--even partially!--on hearsay
Why... posting an emotional public response to something based in part on unsubstantiated information from elsewhere... sounds like something I'd do! (wink)
And the unanswered mail was from a group, not a single household... but you're right, getting rid of "should" improves it further.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-03 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-04 06:09 pm (UTC)You know that I'm not usually one to suggest this particular course of action ;), but if something's become time-sensitive and you haven't gotten a needed response, perhaps you should try phoning the person in question. It's possible, as I think was mentioned previously, that the email you sent was never received; I've been dinged in the past by overzealous spam filtering or by other breakdowns in the mail delivery system.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-05 01:12 pm (UTC)If this LJ post hadn't worked, I might have then tried to look up numbers... I had a couple, actually, I probably could have gotten someone at the main Dreamland house number to relay a message (several people there currently have dead cellphones). Thanks for the suggestion, I should try to call before trying LJ next time...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-05 02:11 pm (UTC)Not a bad strategy. I would never personally rely on LJ as a mode of communication for something that's time-sensitive.