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}
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...