One of the most personally aggravating
human failings I have encountered is assuming that others share your own
preferences and dislikes, and styles of thinking – a problem that predates
social media bubbles by quite a few
millennia. Every individual human being is unique, and there are often points
in common – particularly with friends, but, broadly speaking, it is stupid to
assume that, say, because you like potatoes, or a certain type of music, or a
particular political party, or have a particular approach to saving the planet
or living your life, others will either have the same, or appreciate it once
you “explain” it to them. As an example, if you like being looked after, don’t assume
(a) that others would appreciate gestures along the lines of being looked
after, or (b) that when you are corrected on this this, it is someone having a
go at you: if that is your preference, no problem – provided it doesn’t come at
the expense of the wellbeing of those doing the looking after, of course.
More broadly, this is particularly
important if one wishes to, for example, change the minds of someone who
supports POTUS45 (assuming this is being
read by someone who disapproves of POTUS45’s approach to the US Presidency),
or change the mind of a climate change denier: you have to approach such
matters in a way they will understand and relate to. (If they won’t change their mind, move on.)
So, for example, telling a climate change
denier they’re delusional may be an emotionally satisfying rant, but will just
confirm their impression of those concerned about climate change as judgemental
and unprepared to tolerate questions.
Similarly, for many supporters of POTUS45
it is important to have a genuine appreciation of things like those who have
been left behind by the global economy (which
has been grossly mishandled by aggressive, abrupt and insensitive jerks, in my
opinion, over the last few decades).
It is also important not to compromise your
principles – don’t go along with or tolerate their rants (keeping in mind
that if you have just had a ranted, your objections will not just seem, but
will be hypocritical) “for the sake of the peace”, although it is possible
to avoid being aggressive about it.
There are some guides around on handling
disagreeable conversations: all the ones I’ve read are, in my opinion,
simplistic. Learning about assertiveness helps, as does being able to clear nonBPM units
under stress (which you only begin to
learn AFTER you have learned how to do so under controlled circumstances),
but one of the main points is: thinking about how you are going to leave the
person thinking about you – will you be able to continue the conversation in a
few months’ time when they’ve had a chance to digest your points of view (and, quite possibly, vice versa), or have you burned your bridges?
(Also, don't be snide or superior, which is a problem that plagues the compliant amathiacs whose real motivation about doing progressive activism is about building prestige in their desired social group. These idiots are the people who silence others who have different points of view, possibly quite valid points to make.)
(Also, don't be snide or superior, which is a problem that plagues the compliant amathiacs whose real motivation about doing progressive activism is about building prestige in their desired social group. These idiots are the people who silence others who have different points of view, possibly quite valid points to make.)
Moving away from situations where one is
attempting to achieve a BPM impact,
just don’t make assumptions about people based on your life experiences only.
Probably the version of this problem that I
find most annoying is when people assume that partners / spouses
share likes and dislikes, which is staggeringly naïve.
Love can be a strange thing in terms of who
it brings together, and the (perhaps
fearful? Certainly insecure) assumption that because you know how one
person prefers to live you know how their partner (or partners, if they’re polyamorous) live is, basically, moronic.
Another variation of this is assuming
people have to need the same lessons as you. I came across this recently when
someone I know assumed a health problem in someone else was because of lessons
that that person had needed to learn, problems the person being considered had already
learned and adapted to decades beforehand. (I
found it actually quite offensive, and it blew all the respect I had for that
person right out of the water.)
Yet another – particularly stupid –variation
is assuming that sharing a house makes everyone friends, or even family. The
real world is not a TV series, and the problem of enforced sharing has become
particularly acute as housing has become less affordable (whether rented or owned).
Finally, there is the issue of privacy. You
being curious about someone is not a justification for you to invade their
privacy. If they don’t want to discuss something, don’t get your nose out of
joint: belt up and back off. This particularly applies to workmates: what I do
on the weekends is not available for others to judge by their socially backward
values.
So, what’s the solution to all this?
Ask – respectfully, and without using your
question as an excuse to pry to abuse (for
example, as some people do when asking trans/gender diverse people about the
correct pronouns to use for them).
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram.
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s
may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.
Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative
Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
.jpg)
