Indirect overriding direct feedback...
Apr. 9th, 2002 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayA sweetie recently professed zir love, and said "I don't know what to say to make you feel more secure." But I tend to give words little credence... I tend to watch someone's actions instead. Quietly taking notes and drawing inferences as regards someone's practical, rather than professed, level of interest or affection. In relationships, it seems like I'm always evaluating and re-evaluating how I stand in a given love's affections, usually looking at who zie is spending the most time with,
and the quality of the time spent. For example, if a given sweetie says that "I love you dearly and you're important to me", but can only find time in two months for coffee or a brief lunch (while seeing one or more other partners or close friends several times on evening-long dates or overnights during the same time period), then the message I get indirectly is "I love you, at least somewhat, but I'm too busy to see you, given your relative (un-)importance in my relationship structure." And that indirect assessment then generally determines my willingness to devote further time and energy to that relationship.
I even find myself doing this at times with LJ friend's lists... if I haven't seen an entry from someone in awhile, my first reaction is to check their calendar or profile to determine if I've simply been screened-out of recent entries (given the proliferation of friends-list filtering). If I've been filtered, that affects my willingness to read or respond to that given person's future unfiltered or public entries. Sort of "X doesn't really like me anymore, but is too polite to actually remove me from their friends-list, so I shouldn't bother them in the future. Unless X explicitly shows interest at some future point in something I've posted." There are actually several people with whom I've gone through cycles of filtered-withdrawal-reengaged on LJ, and they aren't necessarily aware of this... (shrug)
Granted that my approach, which works fine for me, isn't necessarily sensible or reasonable for anyone else. For that matter, I have yet to make a friends-list-only entry, let alone use filters. Or killfiles, on Usenet.
and the quality of the time spent. For example, if a given sweetie says that "I love you dearly and you're important to me", but can only find time in two months for coffee or a brief lunch (while seeing one or more other partners or close friends several times on evening-long dates or overnights during the same time period), then the message I get indirectly is "I love you, at least somewhat, but I'm too busy to see you, given your relative (un-)importance in my relationship structure." And that indirect assessment then generally determines my willingness to devote further time and energy to that relationship.
I even find myself doing this at times with LJ friend's lists... if I haven't seen an entry from someone in awhile, my first reaction is to check their calendar or profile to determine if I've simply been screened-out of recent entries (given the proliferation of friends-list filtering). If I've been filtered, that affects my willingness to read or respond to that given person's future unfiltered or public entries. Sort of "X doesn't really like me anymore, but is too polite to actually remove me from their friends-list, so I shouldn't bother them in the future. Unless X explicitly shows interest at some future point in something I've posted." There are actually several people with whom I've gone through cycles of filtered-withdrawal-reengaged on LJ, and they aren't necessarily aware of this... (shrug)
Granted that my approach, which works fine for me, isn't necessarily sensible or reasonable for anyone else. For that matter, I have yet to make a friends-list-only entry, let alone use filters. Or killfiles, on Usenet.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 02:44 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 03:07 pm (UTC)Otherwise, I have been known to skim entries by other people on a given person X's friends-list, looking for their let-slip references to topics discussed in filtered (vs. private) entries... when I have time, and when I'm trying to convince myself whether or not person X is filtering me consistently (and hence would probably rather see me withdraw or disappear).
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 04:38 pm (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 04:52 pm (UTC)Is there any particular reason why you would assume that person X wouldn't just take you off their friends list rather than going to the effort to set up a custom filter? (Insert another paragraph here about hating the name "friends" list, yaddayaddayadda, had this conversation before I believe.)
no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 01:17 am (UTC)Sort of like invitation lists to social events... some subset may be invited to X-variety parties, an overlapping set to Y-type events, and others only to general-invitation activities. And then personally going from seeing a given friend weekly, to a couple of times per month, to only being invited to the twice yearly huge parties (to which the whole community is invited) and seeing the given (ex-?) friend for 30 seconds upon arrival and departure.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 01:26 am (UTC)I do that.
Date: 2002-04-09 03:16 pm (UTC)Sometimes I unfriend people because they are too writey and they keep scrolling other people off my list, but then I go read them with a bookmark. I might make a friends-only entry to keep random nosy acquaintances from finding stuff out, and then I might not think to add people back to the friends list so they don't feel left out.
I keep reading stuff like this in people's LJs. Maybe I'll get out of the LJ business altogether, if it's so easy to be interpreted as "not caring" or "not liking" or "lying about liking," when all I'm trying to do is be a little more available to people and to keep some rememberies. [Not that I figure I play any role in your issues, Brian. :-) I'm just noodling off on some repeated themes I'm running across in LJ.]
To get back to *you* (heaven forbid): is there any chance that something about the way you live your life makes it *difficult* for people to get together with you? Or to get together with you on their own terms (which can be important to people sometimes)? Do you carry any extra burdens around with you (like, say, a jealous spouse or small children), that can reduce the freedom someone feels to make spontaneous plans with you, or to invite you out?
Do the people in question have weird issues like, say, not being able to entertain in their homes and needing to go to other people's places? Do they rely on other people to pay for them a lot, and find you unable or unwilling? Do they like to combine specific pursuits with sweetie-time, which the other sweeties like to pursue but you don't? Or anything like that, that isn't about your company so much as the comfort and convenience of spending time with you?
Anyway, there's no shame in reducing the emotional energy you are willing to put into a relationship with someone who you don't get to see enough. It just seems unfortunate to be drawing conclusions that make you feel bad, if the comparison is between apple-flavored sweeties and orange-flavored sweeties.
Re: I do that.
Date: 2002-04-10 03:11 am (UTC)Hmmm... the underlying problem that I see is that by calling it a "friends list", LJ inevitably mixes-in issues of personal value and validation, e.g., "I must be an okay person, or Foo wouldn't have me on his friends list."
Do you carry any extra burdens around with you (like, say, a jealous spouse or small children)
(chuckle) that's certainly true... Pat has had bouts with the green monster, and been fickle at times as far as poly-support goes, and I have one small and two medium-sized children. Babysitting and reassuring my primary are baggage I carry, along with my own personal kit. On the other hand, to those individuals that are brave enough (or sufficiently foolhardy) to be my partners in spite of all of this, I give much slack regarding supporting their own terms, paying for activities, meals and airline tickets, or catering to their interests. Really, it isn't as much the total activity in a given relationship that sets off my warning sirens, but the trend of activity compared to that person's other activites and relationships.
isn't about your company so much as the comfort and convenience of spending time with you
I see it as being about the life I've built just as much as personality quirks, and hard to differentiate between them. Saying "I'd spend more time with you if you were single and childfree" is little different in effect from saying "I'd spend more time with you if you were a vegetarian" or "...if you had brown eyes." Rejection is rejection...
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 03:56 pm (UTC)I do this too. The words/actions dichotomy can be almost humorous if it weren't so darn painful. "I care deeply about you BUT I won't listen to you, even when you are in pain." "I really love spending time with you BUT nine times out of ten I won't bother getting up out of bed to meet you for our dates." "I want to hear your opinion on this BUT mine is the only one that matters." These are just a few samples from my own experience.
In relationships, it seems like I'm always evaluating and re-evaluating how I stand in a given love's affections ... that indirect assessment then generally determines my willingness to devote further time and energy to that relationship.
[nods] I think it's healthy to be consciously aware of the mixed message, at the very least. I find myself giving more credence to the behavioral part. I think deep down I know that behaviors are something I can count on; behaviors do things, behaviors are visible, behaviors matter a lot to me. Then I usually ask about the difference. Sometimes that part gets me in trouble. :-)
no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 01:39 am (UTC)Ouch... those are unpleasant. And in my limited experience, are sometimes seen when a partner or friend doesn't know themselves very well, such that they can convince themselves that they want a given relationship to which they might actually be emotionally-indifferent. Surface: "this person sounds perfect for me!" Subsurface: "I'm not interested, no chemistry." And unless conscious willpower is exerted, behaviors will probably follow from the subsurface assessment, not surface professions.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 10:17 am (UTC)I should admit that I exaggerated. Still, mixed messages are rarely fun.
And in my limited experience, are sometimes seen when a partner or friend doesn't know themselves very well, such that they can convince themselves that they want a given relationship to which they might actually be emotionally-indifferent.
Yes. Or a person has trouble saying no. Or a person genuinely _wants_ their priorities to be different from what really seems to be the case. Or...
Ah, humans; we're so complicated.
well.
Date: 2002-04-09 05:48 pm (UTC)Ok that first part your right. The whole, "I really dig you but I only want to go to coffee with you one in a while" thing really bugs me. Unfortunately I do that but being so ill I have a good excuse. Correction had a an excuse. (feeling better now).
The second part about researching LJ thing. My first response, Dang you got too much time on your hands!!
Sometimes I post private and only to two specific people who I can just bitch about everything and everyone to. I mean I can say X person is pissing me off, they said XYZ and are just being XYZ... and I just rant on from there. But those two people are my best friends who I would tell everything to and to no one else. So keep that in mind too.
Journals can and will be used privately and by our own disgression. Plus I know some nosey bastards that hate me and will snoop to find anything about me. It is rather pathetic but true.
Re: well.
Date: 2002-04-10 02:43 am (UTC)(smile) Well, better to spend the time, I think, than to presume incorrectly that someone wants more interaction from me than they actually do, or conversely to presume to disappear unnecessarily...
The same principle holds true with face-to-face interactions... better for me to listen and learn from feedback from mutual friends than to repetitively bother someone with, say, unwanted lunch invitations. At the cost of making most friendships and relationships into relatively high-maintenance, high-overhead undertakings for me.
Re: well.
Date: 2002-04-10 07:24 am (UTC)"You know I have been asking you out for lunch and you keep putting me off. Are you really busy or would you like me to stop asking."
That way you give them an out or make them have the guts to say yes or no to you about the lunch.
Re: well.
Date: 2002-04-10 08:53 am (UTC)(grin) ah, but that's the biggest reason for these offline-analysis contortions of mine -- to keep from having to make anyone say yes or no. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid... put on the spot like that, most people will probably respond negatively. As long as I can keep from actually asking anyone anything directly, it's a Schrodinger's cat analogy... I can tell myself that they *might* have answered yes.
Plausible affirmability. ;-)
NOOO!
Date: 2002-04-10 09:59 am (UTC)I don't want to wonder about stuff like that. Email isn't putting on the spot. They can have time to collect their thoughts and then respond. I feel people will respond negatively if you assume they will.
This is going to sound new agey weird but I find it true in my world. If I assume negatively it will ALWAYS end up that way. If I am positive about something or say, "yes this will happen, I can do it" It will happen and or I do, do what every the action was successfully. When we doubt ourselves or others it will never turn out good. I see this pattern in others too.
Plus I really do want to know if someone wants to spend their time with me or not so I know not to waste my time on someone who will not appreciate it. I want to spend my time with people who want to spend time with me. Whether it be frieds, potential SO's or whatever. My time and energy is too important to me and my friends I spend it on to waste on someone who doesn't want me around.
Maybe you want to think of it like that?
Re: NOOO!
Date: 2002-04-11 12:08 pm (UTC)I am positive about what I can accomplish, but I assume a negative reaction from others. Sort of a mixture of what you're proposing.
At a first cut, my time and energy doesn't matter much, but I'm really worried that I'll bother or inconvenience other people...
Re: NOOO!
Date: 2002-04-11 12:51 pm (UTC)Are you kidding me? Seriously, if your that worried about bothering other people, how do you have any type of social life at all? I mean there are some serious social slips you wouldn't want to do depending on people, call early mornings or late evenings. But other than that? I don't have that much time to waste wondering if I am bothering people or not. I expect people to tell me if I am interupting something. I mean I have people call me in the middle of everything and I'll tell them to call back or sometimes it saves me and I can get an out from what I was doing.
I am positive about what I can accomplish, but I assume a negative reaction from others. Sort of a mixture of what you're proposing.
Are you being positive that they are going to react negatively you mean?
Just something to think about. Personally it is too much of an effort to worry or expect bad things that much.
Re: NOOO!
Date: 2002-04-11 02:34 pm (UTC)Actually, no... I'm confident in my own (non-social) abilities and that I can potentially accomplish great things (and have, in the past ;-). But on a personal level, I go into a given social interaction mentally and emotionally prepared for a negative reaction. Sort of like wearing body armor into a high-risk area...
no subject
Date: 2002-04-09 08:57 pm (UTC)I still don't have a killfile for Usenet, because I'm too lazy to either figure out how to set one up, or figure out how to use a newsreader that has one. I've found that "sort by name" -> "delete" works well on most newsgroups, whether I'm sorting out one or two particular people, or sorting in one or two particular people.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 01:50 am (UTC)Killfiles... well, I understand their utility for others, but for me it is kind of a free-speech issue... besides, even snerts say something meaningful occasionally...
Free speech issues
Date: 2002-04-10 07:45 am (UTC)Re: Free speech issues
Date: 2002-04-10 08:44 am (UTC)As far as killfiles go, I've also been lucky in that no one has ever pursued a campaign of ongoing Usenet harrassment or abuse towards me, or stalked me. Under those conditions, I wouldn't hesitate to killfile them (or remove that person from my LJ friends-list, etc.).
no subject
Date: 2002-04-10 05:52 pm (UTC)You were on the list of people "allowed" to see the entry. So, maybe you can see one sample of why sometimes people do restrict their entries.
BTW, I'd consider it a great favor if you let me know whether or not you saw it (don't quite trust this newfangled technology ya know :-)
no subject
Date: 2002-04-11 02:23 pm (UTC)As far as the use of filters (or friends-list-only entries) goes, I agree that your usage was reasonable and appropriate. They don't bother me, per se, only that I attempt to track persistent use (and react accordingly). If someone were consistently filtering me from half of their entries, and I wasn't in a sensitive position relative to that person, then I'd wonder why they put me on their list in the first place...
no subject
Date: 2002-04-11 10:45 am (UTC)I watch actions, too, but how I view the actions can be affected a lot by how they explain them.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-11 02:28 pm (UTC)