[HN Gopher] The art of not taking things personally
___________________________________________________________________
The art of not taking things personally
Author : LoriP
Score : 370 points
Date : 2021-08-31 16:05 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.dave-bailey.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.dave-bailey.com)
| kr15 wrote:
| fuck this coach and his advices. i wont have any empathy to an
| angry shouting asshole. my anxiety and insecurity come not from
| my problems, but from working with such asshole. this is one big
| "forgive a sociopath" article. fuck sociopaths especially fucking
| narcissists, god i hate them.
| viach wrote:
| Some people can be aware of what you think their emitions are
| driven by and use it for manipulative reasons when you react
| accordingly. Probably it is a good idea to treat people as grown
| adults who can be responsible for their reactions whatever
| reasons are behind them.
| dolores_tyrion wrote:
| My problem is taking things personally is what motivates me to do
| things, because of it I'm always stressed or anxious , the social
| points author mentioning is reasonable but for me its hard to
| separate things, which to take personally?, which not to take
| personally?, because the opposite party is commenting my o/p.
|
| The authors mind is what i imagine a peaceful mind look like, ```
| yeah i want to be like that someday?```, but its hard to avoid
| the triggers,
|
| like if my manager arrange meeting with me for certain time, but
| always late for meeting, so i can imagine two things 1) he does
| not give enough important for the meeting with me (because on
| customer meeting he is on time) 2) he is lazy most of the time
| but on customer meetings he comes on time, so i have to imagine
| him being lazy
|
| so by the article's point i have to choose 2nd point so i don't
| take it personally, but my mind knows I'm a subordinate and not
| as important as client, or he is comfortable with me
|
| --------- above is how my mind try to reason to take it
| personally, :-) could someone suggest how to escape it?
| genezeta wrote:
| I don't know if this may help you or not, but...
|
| Let's pick that example of the manager and arriving on time.
| You have built two scenarios. In the first one you are "less
| important", in the second they are "lazy". I can see a couple
| of problems here.
|
| The most immediate one is that there exist other possible
| scenarios. These may go from one extreme to another. I mean, I
| could imagine your manager being "evil", doing it on purpose to
| assert their authority over you, to make you feel who is the
| boss. I could also imagine some other extreme where your
| manager is giving you leeway for you to be the one who calls
| the meeting; they give you time to prepare or to tell them when
| you're ready. These scenarios may or may not apply, of course
| -I do not know your situation-. But they are not impossible.
| And in the same way there may be other possible scenarios.
|
| The second problem derives from the fact that you focused only
| on those two possible scenarios. What do those two have in
| common? Both are negative. They put the reason for what is
| happening either on your manager's character flaw or on your
| own lack of importance. One might guess that you arrived at
| these scenarios by "looking for a problem". Given that you were
| looking for something negative, you only arrived at negative
| scenarios.
|
| ----
|
| What could be done?
|
| You could avoid arriving only to negative scenarios by avoiding
| looking for "a problem". Looking for a problem easily ends up
| finding one in yourself. And then as a defence mechanism some
| other scenario will appear by trying to "shift the blame". In
| fact, your second scenario almost feels like you came up with
| it as a response to find a reason so that the problem is not
| with you but with the manager. In any case, if you start by
| looking for a problem you will end up finding problems.
|
| Instead you may try two different approaches. In one you force
| yourself to consider that the originating reason for this
| situation is not -or at least _may_ not be- a negative one. You
| force yourself to come up with scenarios where there is a good
| intention or a positive motive, even if the result is one that
| irritates you. You don 't even have to believe these scenarios
| are real or correct, just _allow that they might be possible_
| at least as much as the negative ones.
|
| The second approach goes one step beyond this. The idea is this
| one: So there are a number of possible scenarios, but you don't
| really know which one is the "correct" one. Ask yourself: Do
| you need to care? That is, does it really matter what is the
| real reason this happens? Sometimes you may need to care,
| sometimes not really. This depends on you, mostly. I mean, the
| delay on the meetings may be important to you but not to me. Or
| vice-versa.
|
| One small piece of advice here: Sometimes you may think that
| you _do_ care, that it is an important matter and that you want
| it solved /fixed, but if you give it some calm thought you will
| find that you actually don't care that much. So just spend some
| effort here identifying what is _really_ important and what is
| not so much.
|
| Either way, you may care enough to want it fixed -or at least
| to go further- or you may not really care that much. Now, I
| focused on you caring about it, but there's a second factor you
| should consider: _Can_ you actually do anything about it? That
| is, given the various scenarios and possible reasons, can you
| _act_ on any of those to change them or are they all external
| /out of reach to you?
|
| Now you have four possible outcomes:
|
| - You don't care that much, and you can't act on it. Then just
| accept it as it is and go on. You can't do anything about it
| _but_ you have also learned that you really didn 't care so
| much, so this is something which shouldn't bother you.
|
| - You don't care that much, but you could fix it. Then it's
| mostly a question of "choosing your battles". you'd have to see
| how much effort would it take to fix it and balance it with the
| possible benefit. The benefit will be generally small, because
| it's not something you really care about. Either way, if it's
| worth it or not, the outcome should be satisfactory. In one
| "you don't gain much but it didn't cost you much either", in
| the other "you don't fix it because it cost too much, but you
| didn't care so much about it anyway".
|
| - You do care and you can fix it. Then do fix it. It's all in
| you hands, right?
|
| - You do care but you can't fix it. This one is the problematic
| one. In a more stoic approach you may choose to "let it be".
| Accept that you can't fix it anyway so "learn to live with it".
| Sometimes this is enough. Thing about the meeting situation.
| You won't be able to change it, all the reasons you find for it
| are out of your control, there's nothing you can do... but you
| _can_ still choose not to let it bother you. You might choose
| to use those minutes for something useful, like mentally
| preparing yourself for the meeting, or checking the list of
| things you want to address so you don 't forget any, etc. The
| situation hasn't changed but you have changed what you make of
| it. Of course, this doesn't always work for everyone, so
| another approach is this: make it so you can actually fix the
| situation. I mean, all the possible scenarios you've thought of
| are... well, in your mind. So, a first step would be to
| investigate the situation. You may e.g. watch your manager's
| behaviour with other people: is it only when meeting you that
| he is late or is it with every co-worker/non-customer? May be
| it happens with some but not all? What do those do differently?
| Or maybe your manager is actually expecting you to remind them
| of the meeting? Maybe you could try doing that once and seeing
| how it goes?
|
| In any case, my advice would be a mixture of both approaches.
| Make an internal and honest effort to just accept that you
| cannot change some things and make the best of how things are.
| But still keep your attention on identifying things that you
| might actually be able to change.
|
| The background effect this approach has is that you learn to
| look for many more possible scenarios other than just "either
| it's a flaw with myself or I can blame it on someone else". You
| learn to accept that sometimes it doesn't matter that much
| _why_ something is the way it is, and that you can still make
| something out of it, and you also learn to give "positive
| reasons" a change as the origin of a situation.
|
| ----
|
| Im not really sure this can help you much, but I hope it does
| at least a little.
| black_13 wrote:
| I really dont want to understand your poor behaviors or empathize
| with an abuser.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Without understanding, we can't take productive action. Of
| course, one can instead exit the situation, which may be the
| right move and doesn't require much understanding. But that is
| often not an option.
| watwut wrote:
| > Without understanding, we can't take productive action.
|
| That is not true. You can protect against abusers without
| understanding them. Whether making sure you respond (so that
| you are not attractive target) or leaving or going public or
| retaliating.
|
| But, victims who believe they need to understand and
| emphasize with them end up excusing abusers, blaming
| themselves and end up perpetual victims.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| That's a good point. And for victims that may be the best
| way to move forward.
|
| However, beyond helping any victims -- which is incredibly
| important and should be the first priority -- the type of
| productive actions we can take are limited if we don't have
| understanding of what is going on.
| wnoise wrote:
| > You can protect against abusers without understanding
| them.
|
| You can, but not as fully nor as well.
|
| > Whether making sure you respond (so that you are not
| attractive target)
|
| You have to know that responding indeed doesn't make you an
| attractive target. Which varies depending on the motives of
| the abuser. Some are looking for a response, where the
| cruelty is the point.
|
| > or leaving or going public or retaliating.
|
| All of these may or may not be helpful. The first two
| largely based on power relations and PR. But the last is
| vitally dependent on the reactions of the abuser -- and
| again understanding the abuser is needed to predict whether
| that's a useful response.
| dang wrote:
| Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?
| You've done that a lot, and we ban such accounts. It's not what
| this site is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Sounds like a reliable recipe for loneliness. All people, even
| the perfectly nice ones, occasionally misbehave.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I think the world would be better if more people practiced the
| suggestions in this page. Many humans lack compassion. People on
| all sides of all issues behave due to similar fundamental
| reasons: fear, uncertainty, anxiety. If people looked past the
| superficial and helped comfort people who are unlike them in
| addition to those who are similar, we might be able to find
| solutions to more issues.
| [deleted]
| scns wrote:
| When i read the headline, i immediately thought of a talk [0] by
| a belgian actor who worked as a football (soccer) referee in an
| amateur league to learn this. Not a fan of videos but glad i
| watched it.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnJwH_PZXnM
| d--b wrote:
| > Selfnesslessness is often driven by guilt
|
| Ugh, this is an article that tries to explain all human problems
| from basic formulae. While it may be interesting to know that in
| some cases, a variant of this may cause a variant of that, in the
| real world, don't apply these blindly.
|
| There is nothing more irritating than someone telling you: "oh
| you're so selfless, what do you feel guilty about?"
| zwkrt wrote:
| As I get older, the less I identify as my current state and the
| more I identify with the person who transitions through states.
| My change in perspective has reduced my anxieties and anger
| significantly. "This too shall pass" and all that. The more of my
| self image is focused on superficial things, the more I will take
| things personally. What we are angry about tends to be a
| reflection of ourselves more than the current state of affairs.
|
| If I see myself as a busy professional I might be much more
| aggravated by someone at the grocery store holding up the
| checkout line with EBT (since I am busy they must be lazy!). If I
| see myself as a social climber I will always be worrying if
| people are using me for something (since I am using them!). If I
| identify with my wealth I might develop some neurosis regarding
| the sight of the homeless (since they represent ultimate
| failure!).
|
| I don't believe in reincarnation but it is a helpful thought
| experiment to think about what benefits and drawbacks your
| particular incarnation of life holds and how those might be
| different if you were incarnated elsewhere.
| minikites wrote:
| Your comment is very well put and reminds me of this quote from
| Boethius:
|
| >It's my belief that history is a wheel. "Inconsistency is my
| very essence" -says the wheel- "Rise up on my spokes if you
| like, but don't complain when you are cast back down into the
| depths. Good times pass away, but then so do the bad.
| Mutability is our tragedy, but it is also our hope. The worst
| of times, like the best, are always passing away".
| mcguire wrote:
| That's interesting and well-put!
|
| I've thought for a long time that the world is, in a sense, a
| mirror: what you see out there is a reflection of yourself. A
| social climber worrying about being used is a part of that I
| hadn't considered before.
| scns wrote:
| In psychology it is called projection.
| dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote:
| There's many degrees of accuracy for truth that have nothing
| to do with ourselves. What you see and experience generally
| can reach a high level of accuracy -> "He is already an L6 by
| 30."
|
| It is the motives and reasons behind events that are most
| subject to gap filling with our personal experiences "He must
| be climbing the corporate ladder."
|
| When the Bible (via Jesus) speaks about judging, it is
| referring to being cautious with assessing motives, not
| drawing conclusions about factual happenings.
| roystonvassey wrote:
| "What we are angry about tends to be a reflection of ourselves
| more than the current state of affairs."
|
| Absolutely. It is definitely hard to cut through all the fluff
| when we are emotional but this realization has helped me so
| many times and, this applies not just at work. Just as we are
| going through these states and the self-awareness is important,
| it helps to also realize that others are transiting too through
| these different states.
|
| I'm reminded of an another thought that was shared here a while
| back that I try to remember often:
|
| "Life is mostly froth and bubble, Two things stand like stone.
| Kindness in another's trouble, Courage in your own."
|
| -- Adam Lindsay Gordon
| maybevain wrote:
| Aside, but for those like me who can't help but wonder: EBT (I
| believe) stands for electronic benefit transfer, apparently an
| electronic payment method issued by welfare departments in the
| USA.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Whatever has the nature to arise will also pass away.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| This is a common development for men as we get older. I could
| write something similar.
|
| I'd like to think I'm maturing and becoming wise.
|
| But I suspect it's really the falling testosterone levels that
| come with age...
| moneywoes wrote:
| Have you considered supplementation
| annamargot wrote:
| Self-awareness is how I look at it. And it is finally taking
| hold with age :)
|
| I can better manage my emotions by simply being able to
| recognize them almost from an outsider's perspective. My inner
| monologue switches to 3rd person
|
| "Yeah you're feeling super irritable right now, you better go
| chill out somewhere before you say something you don't mean and
| then create a whole big thing for no reason"
|
| Younger me would have started some shit and created unnecessary
| problems
| SkipperCat wrote:
| So true. I read an article ago where they studied aging and
| they found that everything about a person degrades, eyesight,
| strength, cognition, etc with the exception of impulse control
| and patience. As you age, you mellow out and are less tethered
| to knee jerk reactions.
|
| For me, as someone approaching 'early geezerdom', I see it in
| my work interactions. What used to bother me, I can now let
| pass.
| scns wrote:
| This progress can be be sped up with meditation.
| datameta wrote:
| Sans side-effects of aging, of course.
| foobiekr wrote:
| I've had this experience myself. Actually, your description is
| so much kinder than mine that I think I will adopt it. What I
| have said up until now is that as I've gotten older, my
| emotional level has declined very substantially, especially in
| the last ten years. It's like the volume got turned down. Very
| few things bother me, and very few things excite me. I'd
| associated it until now with a sort of depersonalization but
| instead I will identify as just being the thing that passes
| through different states of being.
|
| They're kind of the same thing, but I'd feel less weird saying
| it the way you did.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| You could just be depressed
| [deleted]
| jareklupinski wrote:
| > It's like the volume got turned down.
|
| a bit tangental :) recently I was wearing headphones for a
| zoom meeting, when someone in the same apartment asked me if
| I could turn down the volume, since it was so loud they could
| hear everyone on the meeting even with my headset on.
|
| I had not realized how loud I was turning the system volume
| up in meetings, and after being conscious to it and joining
| at half volume, I noticed my stress during meetings and
| around calls in general has gone down a lot.
| nefitty wrote:
| When I was a case worker that was one of my go-to's to get
| back control of a call. Turning the volume down on someone
| who's screaming at you over the phone makes them seem so
| small and reminded me that they can't hurt me. Stress goes
| down quickly.
| packetlost wrote:
| That's me, except I'm in my early-mid 20s and I've always
| been like that. I describe it as being 'the opposite of
| neurotic' in a psychological sense.
| [deleted]
| dennis_jeeves wrote:
| You are way ahead of the crowd, take care.
| weitzj wrote:
| I had the strategy/mindset that when you are born you get a
| fixed credit on how you want to spend your emotions in life.
| When you are young you still have plenty of credit so you
| spend it on anger that other kids have a nicer laptop or
| whatever. When you get older you realize that you only have
| that much credit left to spend wisely on emotions in your
| life.
|
| Pro tip from me: this mental model sounded nice in bad times.
| But I would not follow it again any more today, and I would
| say you have an endless credit of emotions if you want it.
| Saving your emotions for "the day when you need it" does not
| make sense any more to me and makes me more happy.
| stadium wrote:
| I have a different take after a childhood of repressed
| emotions and some years of therapy. Emotions come and go,
| and they aren't what make a person, they are just something
| that happens.
|
| How we notice and react to our emotions is a choice. Having
| emotions is not a choice.
| scns wrote:
| Aristoteles wrote this is the goal IIRC. In buddhism they aim
| for something similar, neither being swayed by your desires
| nor fears, stay calm enables being able to act instead only
| reacting to external stimuli on autopilot. Nothing wrong with
| it IMSO.
| rojobuffalo wrote:
| i love coming back to the 4 thoughts (buddhism). 1.
| impermance 2. suffering 3. karma 4. precious human birth
|
| suffering arises as a failure to recognize impermanence.
| thoughts and behaviors that reduce suffering create ripple
| effects (karma), and the same is true of thoughts and
| behaviors that increase suffering. and it is a rare
| opportunity to be born as a human and to reflect on our own
| conciousness and the 4 thoughts.
| tmpfs wrote:
| I think the word for this is "equanimity" and it is
| certainly a desirable state.
|
| But it should not be "grey" like the sibling comment
| indicates but full of joy, bliss and wonder.
|
| I think experiencing equanimity is a sign of releasing the
| ego which is natural as we age and become less attached to
| our ideas of who we are and closer to the reality of our
| impending death
| jetrink wrote:
| > IMSO
|
| In my stoic opinion?
| jolmg wrote:
| "Sincere" fits better.
| scns wrote:
| Subjective
| justinpombrio wrote:
| > Very few things bother me, and very few things excite me.
|
| In my view, this is perfectly natural. Your emotions are tied
| to your expectations. As you grow older, you have seen more
| things, and better know what to expect. The first time you
| drop your ice cream cone on the ground as a child, you learn
| that a delicious treat can be destroyed so easily! When you
| drop your ice cream cone on the ground as an adult, it's like
| yeah, well, that happens sometimes, and hey, I've had ice
| cream a hundred times and I'll have it another hundred times.
|
| In other words, since the second time something happens to
| you is less noteworthy than the first time, fewer noteworthy
| things will happen to you per year as you get older. Less
| noteworthy events means less excitement and a faster apparent
| passage of time.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Some people, however [0] deliberately try to search out
| more noteworthy events to counter this temporal trend.
|
| [0] this is not a reference to real persons, living or dead
| and any similarity to my wife is purely coincidental.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'd also say that emotional amplitude might be inversely
| correlated with wealth.
|
| Considering your ice cream example: as a young adult, were
| I to drop my cone, I'd be distraught, because I've just
| lost the one little pleasure I so desired, and there's no
| money in the budget for replacement this week. Today, I'd
| just shrug and buy a new one.
|
| This applies to almost every other situation in life too.
| If you have a cash reserve, trivialities just don't bother
| you anymore (at least until you can't get something because
| the store run out of stock; the influx of powerful emotions
| might come as a surprise then).
| elevenoh wrote:
| True to an underrecognized degree. It's a huge component
| of wisdom. And wisdom - which we might define as
| consistently well applied knowledge - is pretty ~=
| capacity for wealth.
|
| More important in this day & age where big tech preys on
| attention in such a way that default increases emotional
| volatility.
| [deleted]
| flippinburgers wrote:
| I can relate. Everything is approaching a bland, grey state
| of "it just is".
|
| Well, I do still talk down on and find myself frustrated by
| not progressing my career, but I think I am on a precipice of
| no longer caring. Reading HN too much is not good for my
| mental health though I suspect.
| minusf wrote:
| > Very few things bother me, and very few things excite me.
|
| the bother part is fine, but i want to stay being excited
| even by everyday things like a good book, music, a small
| treat, a cup of coffee or a meal i just cooked for myself.
|
| not worrying about everything does not have to mean not to be
| excited about everything.
|
| (i guess it also comes down to how one defines "excited")
| weaksauce wrote:
| you sure that's not a depressive episode worth talking to
| your doctor about? depression isn't just the stereotypical
| dread and angst that the movies typically display. it's more
| of a nothing tastes great anymore, I'm apathetic toward life,
| nothing excites me, etc.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Disclaimer: not the OP here.
|
| I can echo what he said though and I can tell you I am
| definitely not depressed. Some things do excite me, some
| thing do still piss me off. But overall it's definitely
| less. Good on the getting aggravated 'for no good reason'
| side. Sort of sad (not in the being depressed way) on the
| being excited for something side.
|
| E.g. I still have my pet peeves at work that I will
| passionately talk about or convince you of. I will not get
| mad at you any longer if you don't change that variable
| name to exactly the wording I suggested.
| nefitty wrote:
| I'm going through this now, and feel embarrassed or ashamed
| that it might be depression. The phrase "Nothing feels
| good" is so apt, it keeps running through my head. I don't
| feel sad, I just feel like everything is meaningless,
| everything is empty. The only intense emotion that grips me
| now is anxiety about death, which I had managed to handle
| for a long time now.
|
| I just post this into the void to avoid burdening my family
| and friends. I should go do the dishes...
| jacobr1 wrote:
| I'm not the OP, but I've noticed something similar myself.
| I still have certain things I'm passionate about. But I no
| longer feel the need (or rather I don't just automatically
| become invested in every topic that comes up in my
| environment).
|
| People do outrageous things in the world, and an earlier me
| might have had a self-righteous anger about it. Today,
| while I certainly have an intellectual care, I have the
| luxury of putting such things out of mind and just enjoying
| my day. I still take proactive steps to better the world
| where I think it makes sense, but not out any emotional
| fervor. I save my passions for my family, hobbies, and a
| subset of professional interests.
|
| I haven't read the book, but from the abstract, I suspect
| "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" by Mark Manson is
| basically where I arrived. I have learned I have only so my
| F's to give, and so spend them more wisely.
| yosamino wrote:
| > I have learned I have only so my F's to give, and so
| spend them more wisely.
|
| Not entirely 100% percent the same sentiment, but still a
| pretty good soundtrack for not handing out Fucks too
| quickly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqbk9cDX0l0
| neeleshs wrote:
| +1 for the book. There are too many things in this
| always-on world to give a f..k about. I've been trying to
| enjoy smaller things in life more and do not react to all
| the shif..ry that always seems to be going on around my
| immediate world. Much better state of mind.
| neeleshs wrote:
| Not OP, but at least for me it's the deliberate act of not
| reacting to shit always. Still enjoy a bowl of pasta at my
| favorite restaurant or a piece of dark chocolate.still
| joyful seeing the full moon or the occasional mars in the
| sky!
| gexla wrote:
| Right, I work to keep my identity small and to be adaptable.
| Making things "always about you" is seeing the world through
| that identity tainted lens and positioning the world as if you
| are the center. I instead try to be observational and LARP into
| any situation as if I'm in an improv show.
| aomobile wrote:
| I think the homeless don't scare people necessarily because
| they are a what-might-be but rather because of being a what-is.
| In the us you might get a bad conscience if you see a homeless
| person but hey at least your salary is good. In Europe we pay
| so many taxes that it feels a bit different.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| In europe i feel anger on the state whos employees failed to
| rectify a situation i paid and worked hard so nobody has to
| experience it.
| tomcooks wrote:
| I highly suggest books on stoicism by William B Irwine if you
| want to learn simple ways not to take things personally, a true
| gem of an author.
|
| https://www.williambirvine.com/books
| zz865 wrote:
| The problem I'm getting as I get older I'm starting to overshoot
| and not care about anyone's opinions, turning into a grumpy old
| man who doesnt care any more. :)
| draw_down wrote:
| It is what it is, as the old saying goes.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I think that's normal. You eventually get enough experience you
| can't be bullshitted much anymore and bullshit is everywhere it
| turns out.
| magicroot75 wrote:
| I take criticism extremely personally, because I have such a
| internally critical view of everything that I do. I become
| extraordinarily hurt when someone rightly corrects me at work.
| Anyone have helpful tips on this?
| icelancer wrote:
| Therapy, honestly. I can tell you the truth [0] but it's
| nothing you haven't heard or thought already - finding a
| professional that can explain it to you in a way you can
| connect with is what matters.
|
| [0]: Other peoples' unsolicited opinions are worth very little
| the overwhelming majority of the time.
| bittercynic wrote:
| Full article: https://outline.com/2wGcn2
| totaldude87 wrote:
| thanks, i hate medium paywall and paywalled posts here in HN
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| Fragility comes from insecurity.
|
| Insecurity is both objective and subjective.
|
| On different days you may feel more or less secure.
|
| To not care _too_ much about yourself is the first step. The
| world is what it is and our desires are just that. Desires. Easy
| to forget that the world owes or cares. It does not. Luckily it
| does not care about anyone else.
|
| We only have this life to live.
|
| "We have two lives, and the second begins when we realize we only
| have one." --Confucius
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| What do you mean by "fragility?"
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| I meant it as a type of sensitivity. Like, someone reacting
| harshly to a slight or an insult.
|
| A lack of confidence is what I'm trying to communicate in the
| first sentence. They need other's judgement to validate
| themselves.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I see, thanks for clarifying.
| dumpsterdiver wrote:
| Colloquial usage around here means something close to, "An
| inability to gracefully accept an external perception of
| ourselves, because that perception is at odds with our own
| understanding of ourselves."
|
| This "fragility" must always be accompanied by an accusation
| - otherwise fragility would not manifest. Without an
| accusation to deny, no one can be fragile in this sense. The
| opposite of fragility is callousness - i.e. "Damn right,
| that's what I said. I meant it. I don't care who it hurt, as
| long as they get out of the way."
|
| The word "fragility", in its current social context, would
| appear to be a word intended to belittle. It says, "You think
| you're a big person, but you are a small person. Because you
| have denied my truth, you are fragile. Because you have
| proclaimed your innocence, you are fragile."
|
| To me, there is a glaring fallacy in calling people "fragile"
| this way - and that is the part when the people who engage in
| this behavior decide to forgo intelligent discourse and
| presume that they are correct without hearing the other side
| of the story. Sometimes people are different than each other,
| and you can't always win arguments just by calling them
| "fragile" when they disagree with you, because what we're
| really talking about sometimes when we say the word "fragile"
| in this context, is "an impassioned personal defense against
| accusations thrown at people who look like me, but who do not
| represent my values." It's not okay to do this. The only
| thing we do when we call people "fragile" in this way, is we
| internally invalidate their position, and then we burn the
| only bridge we ever had with them.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Thank you for the in-depth explanation.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| I view fragile and sensitive in the same light. Though, I
| do mean it with a negative connotation.
|
| That being said, im not sure i follow the fallacy part. I'm
| guessing you mean that people who use fragility are doing
| it shut down discussion. I tend to use it to highlight that
| there's a set of people with whom I won't speak freely for
| fear of hurting them because their are sensitive. I don't
| do this out of nobleness to not harm, i do it to avoid
| negative emotions from them. In a way I am fragile as well.
| dumpsterdiver wrote:
| > That being said, im not sure i follow the fallacy part.
| I'm guessing you mean that people who use fragility are
| doing it shut down discussion. I tend to use it to
| highlight that there's a set of people with whom I won't
| speak freely for fear of hurting them because their are
| sensitive. I don't do this out of nobleness to not harm,
| i do it to avoid negative emotions from them.
|
| > In a way I am fragile as well.
|
| Yes, you've nailed it. By "fallacy" I mean "an unsound
| argument", because if I were to think that the person I'm
| arguing with is "fragile" - that would mean that I have
| already accepted my position as the correct position, and
| that the people I'm educating simply aren't able to
| accept my truth because it would damage their ego.
|
| Arguing with people without ever hearing their side is a
| great way to become obtuse.
|
| When, during that line of thinking, would I ever ask,
| "Could I possibly be the one who is wrong? Is there more
| to this story than just my side?"
| [deleted]
| mLuby wrote:
| > Colloquial usage around here
|
| "Here" sounds like a strange place.
|
| Fragility means something is easily broken. The opposite is
| toughness, not callousness. Relatedly, resilience means
| something recovers or repairs easily. Sensitivity is how
| easily something reacts to inputs.
|
| Fragility _in people_ (AKA "breaking down" or "going to
| pieces") doesn't need an accusation or necessarily involve
| external perceptions. If you see an adult, say, trip over
| something and then start sobbing, they were likely already
| in a fragile state and the trip was enough to momentarily
| shatter them. Someone who's "tough" will endure more
| hardship than someone who's "fragile" before breaking down.
| Someone who's resilient will be able to put themselves back
| together again more easily, regardless of whether they were
| tough or fragile.
|
| Fragility as the original posted used it makes sense: if
| someone is food/money insecure or physically insecure or
| socially insecure, it won't take much "damage" to make that
| insecurity into a crisis.
| drewcoo wrote:
| Throw-away deepities.
|
| https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity
| [deleted]
| abbub wrote:
| I love that the 'deepities' wiki page has a link to the page
| on Deepak Chopra... lol
| yesenadam wrote:
| I don't think that's Confucius. Doesn't sound like him, can't
| find any source mentioned online. It appears in a lot of places
| online, like fake quotes do, but no reputable places, and never
| with a source.
| psychomugs wrote:
| "Live as if you were living already for the second time and as
| if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to
| act now" - Victor Frankl
| courtf wrote:
| Counterpoint: enlightenment is overrated and life is meant to be
| taken personally. In some senses, it is a bit cowardly to run
| away from the current moment we live in by stepping back and
| viewing the big picture too often. "Negative" emotions and
| experiences are valid parts of life. Anger, anxiety, fear etc are
| all part of being a human being and have evolved over billions of
| years to reach their current forms. We may not always enjoy these
| parts of life, but avoiding them completely would mean stunting
| ourselves.
|
| Learning to observe and not react to the complex interplay of
| emotional states that constantly dance across our consciousness
| is a powerful tool, but you cannot survive inside the epiphany.
| We all must descend back into the messy day-to-day needs of
| maintaining our bodies, no one is actually the Buddha. I think we
| should all have more patience with inability to behave
| appropriately under all circumstances, because we will all fall
| short of grace.
|
| "Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must
| lead."
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's important not to judge the world by its effect on your
| internal state. The world isn't party to your internal state,
| although you walk around with an _illusion of transparency._
| People are doing things _for their own reasons, not for yours._
|
| Referring to the Buddha in order to make emotional regulation
| seem like an unachievable perfection is not really a good
| support, because the argument you're making is that we _shouldn
| 't always try to control our irrational emotions_, not that we
| sometimes fail to control our irrational emotions, even when we
| try. That's just an objective fact.
|
| Getting away from billions of years of reaction is the reason
| why we have civilization. It's a little more cowardly to
| interpret the world in terms of how it makes you feel rather
| than the complicated, messy problem of navigating the world in
| terms of how it may be making everyone feel.
| courtf wrote:
| > It's important not to judge the world by its effect on your
| internal state. The world isn't party to your internal state,
| although you walk around with an illusion of transparency.
| People are doing things for their own reasons, not for yours.
|
| Sure, I agree. This isn't a contradiction with my post.
|
| > Referring to the Buddha in order to make emotional
| regulation seem like an unachievable perfection is not really
| a good support, because the argument you're making is that we
| shouldn't always try to control our irrational emotions, not
| that we sometimes fail to control our irrational emotions,
| even when we try.
|
| One core message of Buddhism is that we fundamentally cannot
| control ourselves, even when we try. You are correct that I
| am saying we shouldn't always try, and I stand by that, but
| the idea is that it isn't actually possible to achieve.
| Buddha is indeed an unachievable perfection, and supports my
| point because trying is truly futile in the end.
|
| That is not to say we should always act however we want and
| treat others terribly for our own amusement, just that we are
| not actually in control. We can try to steer the elephant,
| and may have some success with that on occasion, but complete
| control is not possible. What I am saying, is that it's ok to
| let the elephant do what it wants sometimes, because
| ultimately it's going to do that a lot of the time anyway.
|
| > Getting away from billions of years of reaction is the
| reason why we have civilization.
|
| How would you say that experiment is going? Civilization
| isn't more powerful than evolution is what I would say, and
| we have seen a lot of man's worst impulses expressed with
| greater force than ever during the modern period. We haven't
| escaped evolution yet.
|
| > It's a little more cowardly to interpret the world in terms
| of how it makes you feel rather than the complicated, messy
| problem of navigating the world in terms of how it may be
| making everyone feel.
|
| Not sure how this relates to what I said. Sounds like you
| just wanted to turn my words around. I never said anything
| about substituting personal feelings for the act of being
| empathetic with others, and the topic is about not taking
| things personally, so this is a new goalpost. Nonetheless, I
| don't disagree. Part of having empathy for others is not
| judging their behavior from a position of assumed
| superiority.
| lmm wrote:
| > We can try to steer the elephant, and may have some
| success with that on occasion, but complete control is not
| possible. What I am saying, is that it's ok to let the
| elephant do what it wants sometimes, because ultimately
| it's going to do that a lot of the time anyway.
|
| That's not a sound argument though. E.g. the fact that you
| can't save every starving child in no way proves that you
| shouldn't try as hard as you can to save those that you
| can.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| This isn't related to the prior subject of the thread,
| but:
|
| > E.g. the fact that you can't save every starving child
| in no way proves that you shouldn't try as hard as you
| can to save those that you can.
|
| "Shouldn't" is doing a lot of work there. Why _should_
| anything be done? It 's a question of morals.
|
| So on the moral question of whether someone should try as
| hard as they can to save as many starving children as
| possible: I don't do that. I'm pretty certain 100% of
| people here including you don't either. Actually 100% of
| the world aside from perhaps the parents of said starving
| children plus a rounding error of extremely passionate
| and dedicated people will do so.
|
| So I think that is pretty well established isn't it? You
| need not try as hard as you can to save starving
| children.
|
| Better analogy might be that you can't prevent being in
| an automobile accident all the time, that doesn't make it
| okay to stop paying attention sometimes.
| qqtt wrote:
| I agree. A lot of discussion and these philosophical quotes
| about living tend to want to inspire you to rebel against your
| nature. Think abstractly. Think rationally. Make the right
| decisions (for some value of "right").
|
| But people aren't really wired like this. Maybe rebelling
| against your nature is the "right" choice, but maybe just
| living your life isn't so bad either. Take things personally.
| Don't take things personally. Be angry, be frustrated. Get
| depressed. Also, be happy sometimes.
|
| You only have one life. The guy who never gets angry is going
| to the same place as the guy who fully feels those emotions.
| Maybe one will be less productive at a certain point in time
| than the other, but does it matter?
|
| These cosmic balance scale games are at the end of the day
| silly and superfluous.
| scns wrote:
| Khalil Gibran expressed it like this: "You can avoid crying
| all your tears, but you won't laugh all you laughter then."
| Highly recommend reading The Prophet by him. A thin book,
| saying a lot with a few words.
| marbletimes wrote:
| This is one of those witty sentences that sound good (the
| balance of life, laughs here, tears there, if you want to
| enjoy living you need to accept dying, everything happens
| for a reason), but they are just biblical nonsense. There
| are plenty of very accomplished, successful (internally and
| externally) people who feel much more joy than sorrow, and
| plenty of evil people who have an internal life that is no
| worse than much more saintly people, but according to The
| Prophet they all should cry more. I remember I went on a
| date, and they said, "when a relationship is ending, I
| really want to feel the pain, as it makes the relationship
| something of value". I thought it was bananas, there is
| very little to be gained by pain and spiraling
| introspection after a break-up. But the other side of the
| coin says, should I keep my mouth shut during cringy
| conversation, so I can then have more enlightened, or
| presumably enlightened, conversations with someone else?
| scns wrote:
| I read it differently, like: if you suppress feelings you
| want to avoid (labeled negative usually), you won't feel
| all the feelings you would like to (labeled positive
| usually).
|
| (edit) Another favourite quote of mine is from the
| chapter about pain: "Your pain is the breaking of the
| shell that encloses your understanding."
|
| You can read the full chapter here:
| https://poets.org/poem/pain-1
| courtf wrote:
| It's always a bit fraught to bring up the upsides of
| irrationality and potentially dangerous/destructive emotions
| and impulses. Bukowski didn't win a lot of popularity
| contests. I agree with what you've said here though.
|
| We may be abstracting the conversation beyond the limits of
| what is appropriate in the workplace here, but I tend to
| think the workplace should and could be a more relaxed space
| if we were more patient with the negative emotions of others.
| At least for me, that starts with recognizing my own
| emotional states, and not always being afraid to experience
| them authentically.
| akomtu wrote:
| That's the territory of natural philosophy. The typical answer
| from "occult" books to your argument would be that there are
| two almost independent beings posing as one human: the lower
| one, which includes autonomous body capable of feeling and
| primitive thinking; and the upper triad that includes abstract
| mind, also capable of independent existence. Most people are
| unsure which part they identify with. Your argument is
| basically identifying with the lower half. This is basically
| what the upside down pentagram means: a human who chose to go
| downwards. Of course, you can dismiss this counter-argument as
| unscientific and forget about it.
| sammalloy wrote:
| > no one is actually the Buddha
|
| I'm an atheist, but I've studied this, and I think this is a
| matter of major disagreement in the different schools.
|
| In the west, more contemporary (and often secular) teachers
| talk about how everyone is a potential Buddha.
|
| There are also close parallels with the more hippie, Christian
| schools that arose in the 1960s-1970s era (intentional
| communities) which also taught (quietly I might add), that
| everyone is a potential Christ.
|
| While this might seem like a trivial point, we do see signs of
| these teachings arising in the past, from century to century.
|
| These ideas are generally criticized as heretical and repressed
| because they threaten the hegemonic, institutional nature of
| religion, which still maintains that the one true
| interpretation is that there is a single figure (Christ,
| Buddha, etc) that adherents should aspire to worship, and that
| they can never equal or match.
|
| The heretical version states the opposite. These adherents
| believe that Christ and Buddha (assuming for the sake of this
| argument that they are real, historical figures) did not teach
| so that they could be worshipped, they taught so that others
| could become like them.
|
| When you see the religions in this way, then yes, everyone is
| truly the potential Buddha and the potential Christ, and the
| vast institutional power of the church disappears, and the
| roles of priests and clerics vanishes with them.
|
| This kind of change has the effect of emphasizing philosophy
| over ideology, and places the onus of being a good person and
| doing good works on the here and now, not on some mythical
| afterlife or legendary heaven or hell.
| courtf wrote:
| That seems reasonable to me, emphasis on "potential."
|
| Whether that potentiality can be realized here on earth, in
| this life, is where I would start to quibble.
| sammalloy wrote:
| Yes, I am reminded of the differences between, let's say,
| Joseph Goldstein, who non-dogmatically insists (hopefully
| that's not too strong a word, but it was the impression
| that I got from him) that one must conclude in the reality
| of rebirth; whereas someone like Gil Fronsdal can't quite
| be pinned down, but I have seen an essay by him (again, I
| hope I'm not misinterpreting things) that suggests that the
| concept of rebirth was invented by later Buddhists, which
| would support the secular endeavor.
|
| The best description of the doctrinal differences between
| the Buddhist schools that I've ever heard expressed clearly
| and with great humor was by Hyon Gak Sunim.
| courtf wrote:
| Thanks for these names! I will have to look into them.
|
| Rebirth is a tricky one for me because it just seems too
| fantastical, but then many things about our world and our
| selves remain inexplicable, if not outright fantastical
| themselves.
|
| Rebirth also might not be a true continuation of our
| individual consciousness, but a repackaging of sorts.
|
| I try to square these ideas with the physical world we
| inhabit, where our consciousness is very much affected by
| the environment and the state of our bodies and minds. It
| seems hard to believe in a soul (or anything ineffable
| that is a part of us lasting beyond death) in the
| traditional sense, when we are so malleable and our
| experiences so subjective. A tweak to my brain chemistry
| can drastically alter my behavior etc.
|
| So if I still want to think about rebirth, I feel I must
| conclude that whatever can survive death must be quite a
| bit more abstract than the consciousness I am familiar
| with.
| pqs wrote:
| As a Catholic, I believe that the imitation of Christ is an
| obligation for every Christian. We should always aim to
| imitate Christ. This is a very old idea. The 15h-century book
| by Thomas a Kempis is an example:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_of_Christ
| empressplay wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism
|
| Historically, Christian mysticism has taught that for
| Christians the major emphasis of mysticism concerns a
| spiritual transformation of the egoic self, the following of
| a path designed to produce more fully realized human persons,
| "created in the Image and Likeness of God" and as such,
| living in harmonious communion with God, the Church, the rest
| of the world, and all creation, including oneself. For
| Christians, this human potential is realized most perfectly
| in Jesus, precisely because he is both God and human, and is
| manifested in others through their association with him,
| whether conscious, as in the case of Christian mystics, or
| unconscious, with regard to spiritual persons who follow
| other traditions, such as Gandhi. The Eastern Christian
| tradition speaks of this transformation in terms of theosis
| or divinization, perhaps best summed up by an ancient
| aphorism usually attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria: "God
| became human so that man might become god."[a]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The heretical version states the opposite. These adherents
| believe that Christ and Buddha (assuming for the sake of this
| argument that they are real, historical figures) did not
| teach so that they could be worshipped, they taught so that
| others could become like them.
|
| That view is orthodox in mainstream Christianity (Catholic,
| Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox), not
| heretical; its a central part of the mainstream understanding
| of the purpose of the incarnation; that Christ is, above all,
| a _model_.
| sammalloy wrote:
| > Every Negative Emotion is Driven by an Unmet Need
|
| > When you notice a negative emotion in someone, get curious
| about what that emotion might be -- and try to uncover the unmet
| need that accompanies it. 'Are you feeling X because you're
| needing Y?'.
|
| I have a sense that this practice could change the world and make
| life better for everyone. I wonder what it would take for
| everyone to start doing it.
| watwut wrote:
| This is how abuse victims are often socialized and what they
| do. The people who stay in abusive relationships/workplaces or
| move from one abusive relationship to another. They assume
| themselves responsible for other peoples emotions. If others
| react negatively, they see it as their duty to adjust
| everything to that.
|
| And when they talk about abuse with people whobhave this
| expectation, this expectation, they get blamed to not twist
| themselves perfectly to abusers wishes.
|
| This is noble and sometimes works. But other times you need to
| set boundaries. You need to protect yourself even as abuser
| feels bad about it.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I just don't know what to do once I feel I've figured out their
| unmet needs and it's something they shouldn't need...
| sethammons wrote:
| In non-violent communication, the needs (broadly) are:
| connection, physical well being, honesty, play, peace,
| autonomy, and meaning. Hard to argue against someone needing
| those.
|
| https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Autonomy for an employee who makes bad decisions when left
| alone is hard to provide, for example.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > I wonder what it would take for everyone to start doing it.
|
| Short answer: Critical mass
|
| Long answer: Probably will never hit critical mass. This is
| very hard to do on the fly and requires a lot of practice.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| Not taking anything personally is not an art, it's a basic
| (although not necessarily easy for everyone to develop) skill
| essential for healthy functioning in today society. There are so
| many morons and unfortunate incidents and tendencies taking place
| around, almost everyone is doomed to be exposed to a lot of
| toxicity regularly so a habit of taking everything seriously
| almost should be considered a disorder itself. Just switch it
| off. Imagine you are just seeing it on TV in a fiction movie or
| whatever. Stop caring about things you can't change and believing
| misbehaving people to be personally bad, they are just
| malfunctioning. Some experience of working in tech support,
| customer care or sales helps a lot.
| drummer wrote:
| Interesting how the author avoided sex and intimacy in his "list
| of common universal needs".
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| The list is "common" not "comprehensive".
| echlebek wrote:
| The uncommon need for sex and intimacy?
| panzagl wrote:
| At work, yes.
| echlebek wrote:
| Fair enough!
| EricE wrote:
| In public or interacting with co workers? I would hope sex
| would be uncommon in those situations!
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Neither is a _universal_ need. Plenty of single hermits are
| perfectly happy hermitting alone.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Most of those I know of are very much not alone and rely on a
| massively alive biome they kinda claim for themselves where
| they are usually intimate with a ridiculous amount of animals
| and plants. Intimacy doesn't imply that you have to do it
| with another human, it's just a feeling of a barrier being
| lowered for you that wouldn't be someone else. Petting a car
| is intimacy. I'm not sure it's a universal need but I think
| most scholars that study "mental health" from different
| perspectives agree that for virtually all humans being
| deprived of that leads to suffering.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Here's a link of commonly unmet universal needs at work:_ "
|
| 1. Commonly unmet.
|
| 2. At work.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This reminds me of a conversation I overheard regarding
| legality of sex work.
|
| Apparently the individual was in favor of it, but when asked
| about hybrid options, where a administrative assistant would
| be available for office support and sex, they weren't quite
| able to explain why that should be illegal.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Interesting thought. My reply would be that a similar
| situation as with drugs, gambling and other vices applies.
|
| That is, it can be allowed but in specific establishments
| with clear rules and expectations.
|
| Not that sex is exactly like the other vices, but the lust
| variety kind of is.
| mrkstu wrote:
| There was a reason Mormon's tended to be hired by casinos
| in Vegas- their exposure to the local vices (and hence
| their corruptibility) was lower than average.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| This article has a paywall. I will not take this personally and
| just not read it.
| ljm wrote:
| I scanned the page for 'empathy' and there was not a single
| mention of it.
|
| 'Emotional generosity', the thing at the start of the article,
| doesn't count. I don't know where that language came from but it
| doesn't sound empathetic, it sounds transactional.
|
| I don't really care for what else the author has to say, having
| understood that
| ogre_magi wrote:
| The entire article is about empathizing with others...
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Its more a guide for pandering to the narcicissts who infect
| our lives and make us miserable.
|
| If you find yourself having to perform these rituals in the
| workspace, stop yourself.
|
| When dealing with emotionally damaged people who never made
| it to fully functional adult, speak to them in a monotone and
| don't engage with the emotional manipulation they are
| attempting. This will confuse them, then enrage them, then
| finally they will admit defeat.
|
| Do not pander to the emotionally manipulative person ever.
| 58x14 wrote:
| from article,
|
| "10. Every Negative Emotion is Driven by an Unmet Need.
|
| Here's a link of commonly unmet universal needs at work:"
|
| and a graphic with empathy at the top of the center column.
|
| Trivial, but entertaining for me to notice this.
| exo-pla-net wrote:
| This article about a forest doesn't mention the word "tree".
| I'll be looking for lumber elsewhere, thank you very much.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I don't know if this is a mental hack or not, but I found years
| ago that if I mentally sing the comments (that I know would upset
| me otherwise), it totally removes the emotional impact of other
| people's negative writing.
|
| When I was contemplating why this might be so effective, I was
| reminded that satire of old often involved singing to point out
| other peoples absurdity. When you think about how much the
| powerful fear humor and satire, there might be something there...
| mkaic wrote:
| Wow, I've never heard of this before, I'm 100% trying this next
| time I'm in Twitter. Thanks for the tip!
| bergerjac wrote:
| When people try to insult me, sometimes instead of 'taking the
| insult & emotion in' ("personally")... I purposely hallucinate
| their words as text like closed captions.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Singing and speech are different processes in the brain. It has
| been observed that some people with a stutter can still sing
| without any hint of a stutter. So I wonder if your trick is a
| result of some sort of personality difference in left brain
| versus right brain.
|
| 1. https://www.stuttering.co.nz/news/why-dont-we-stutter-
| when-w...
| kubafu wrote:
| This is exactly the kind of leverage I come to HN for, thanks!!
| hammock wrote:
| Love this. It reminds me of the whole "celebrities read mean
| tweets about themselves on Jimmy Kimmel" thing. Taking a
| comment out of context really blunts its power
| hnarn wrote:
| Nothing trains you to not take things personally like being put
| through the ringer of modern day online dating. Forcing myself to
| deal with rejection hasn't been a very pleasant experience, but
| I'm absolutely sure I've improved because of it. As soon as you
| can truly and honestly accept that in the vast majority of cases,
| you do not have the power to change people's perception or
| attraction to you, it's not only liberating: you also realize
| that effort is better placed where you have a decent chance of
| actually changing the outcome.
|
| Once you understand and feel confident in what you have to offer
| other people, if they do not want it, what else is there to say?
| Nobody wants everything, and nobody can offer everything. A
| single human, or ten humans, is not representative of humanity.
| There's nothing to be sad about, it's just an interaction among
| millions, and you just need to find new interactions.
|
| It's based in insecurity, the need to affirm our value through
| other people. This is of course fundamentally human and is
| practically impossible to get rid of, but you don't have to
| assign the same value to every single human you come across in
| your life. You don't like every human being in the world, so why
| would you expect every human being to like you?
| mettamage wrote:
| Back when I was dating (5 years ago) it was also a humbling
| experience. It does seem to be the case that online dating is a
| lot tougher.
|
| Then again, I'm old fashioned.
| hnarn wrote:
| I'm sure they're both humbling, it's just that I believe the
| massive difference in selection between men and women is
| exacerbated by the online experience. There are benefits and
| downsides to them both, I think.
| Lio wrote:
| > Nothing trains you to not take things personally like being
| put through the ringer of modern day online dating.
|
| Back in the day this was worse believe me. At least you're not
| approaching a random stranger and their friends in a public
| place and then getting shot down in front of all of them.
|
| In online dating their is at least the chance that the person
| you approach is looking for a relationship with someone. That
| wasn't always the case back in the good ol' days.
|
| The conclusions are the same though. It's not personal, even
| when it is.
|
| Your personal worth is not predicated on what others think of
| you and weirdly once you know that you notice more people that
| do value you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-01 10:00 UTC)