Relationships, generally.

[icesong]

Wanting to still be part of your intimate gatherings is an entirely different thing. Had she merely said "I never want to contact you again", and meant it literally, that would have been reasonable - but what you describe is a level of "have your cake and eat it too".

 

[River]

As I feel into and contemplate whats going on with / for me about these matters -- with multiple people involved --, I see that my own personal challenge is staying clear and sustaining self-respect and self-kindness when I feel accused of being mean, rude or insensitive.

Such an accusation is very challenging for me because (a), I'm a rather intense
sort of fellow, and (b) my intensity is sometimes mistaken for aggression or overbearingness, rather than seen simply as "this guy is just a bit intense".

Part of how I respect other people is to recognize that we're all different in the infinite ways wer're all a little different. If someone is very delicate and sensitive, I try to treat them as such. If someone is more intense, I try to relate with them as such. I try my best not to expect or demand that everyone be just as I am; and I would prefer to be treated similarly -- and understood as such.

I realize that I tend to be a little intense in my expressiveness. If I am bewildered and troubled, you'll probably have little difficulty seeing that that's what I'm feeling at the moment. I try my best not to project the cause of my bewilderment or trouble onto those who are not in fact responsible for it. But, again, as I keep saying, I'm merely human -- and quite imperfect -- but I really do try to be as kind and sensitive to others as I can be.

And, sometimes, I'm putting more effort into that trying than some of the others are, but still I sometimes get made into "the bad guy" for being imperfect about it. And that gets under my skin. After all, as I said, I am involved with a lot of people in my work and social life. (More people than ever, which is another matter.... It makes it challenging 'cause I'm stretching myself in lots of ways.) I WANT (wish) to be given as much kindness and forgivingness as I offer. I have no right to demand that, of course. But I do want it -- should I be totally honest.

As I write this I'm realizing that SOME people in my life don't treat me with the same willingness to be forgiving and sensitive as they demand to be treated with. And that rubs me the wrong way, as it is basically unfair, and I WANT to be treated with fairness. But I cannot DEMAND fairness from those who don't understand that they are being unfair, can I? And so I suppose I just need to reach deeper into myself for the "resources" whereby I can be treated unfairly and still remain calm, sensitive and kind.

So, I guess the ball is always in my court and I'll just have to accept that as a fact.

 

[vinsanity0]

The Vulcans weren't born without emotions. Their culture dictated that they suppress those emotions and replace them with logic.

I completely understand your view. I could have written it myself many years ago. Your argument is fine if it's between Sheldon Cooper and Amy Farrah Fowler. The problem is you are not dealing with someone who only thinks in terms of logic. Sometimes you have to accept that the other person is just not being rational.

I used to go through this with Cat. It was as if we were speaking different languages sometimes. She would take something I said completely the wrong way. I would attempt to use logic. It wouldn't work. I was told I should apologize. WHAT? OK, so I would say "I'm sorry you feel this way but..." Of course that doesn't work.

Now I say "Sorry", and the "but..." part just stays in my head. Once she hears sorry she feels her feelings are validated. THEN she might see my point all on her own and apologize to me as well.

You mentioned gender. I may draw some ire here but men and women often don't look at things the same way. As a whole men are more logical (and yes, there are women on this forum who are very logical. There are exceptions for everything). Women tend more to feelings, facts be damned.

Now this new wrinkle may be an opportunity. In your situation I would just walk up to her and say, "I'm sorry for any misunderstanding." Then walk away and go about your business. Sometimes that is all it takes for a person to realize they had been acting irrationally.

Sometimes. in a relationship, you just have to swallow your ego.

None of this is saying you are factually wrong. It's more about how to deal with people. Look at it as being the better person.

 

[Hannahfluke]

In my world, facts and feelings are not identical, exactly. Feelings may be facts, but feeling a certain way does not make something a fact.

Hannahfluke, you suggest that I invalidated Tammy's feelings. But, in fact, I disputed a question of facts. Facts are very different things from feelings, though feelings themselves are facts. Tammy said that I had asked her to "shut up." This is not a fact. I never told Tammy to shut up, even if Tammy had felt that I said "shut up". A feeling is not necessarily a fact, even though feelings are facts. Feelings are facts in that a person feels something (feelings are always bodily and in the realm of sensations -- felt experience). That's what makes them a fact. If I say I feel sad, or hot, or warm, or cold, or discouraged (as you see, it's complicated. Can one "feel" discouraged? I'd say yes. But one has to identify a sensation to feel anything, and "discouraged" can be felt in the body.

If I "feel" that the average person can leap the Grand Canyon in a single bound, even while wearing a backpack full of rocks, that does not constitute a fact. If Tammy, or anyone else, remembers me as having said "Shut Up," and I did not say those words, that "feeling" is not a fact about what I said.

I did NOT invalidate Tammy's feeling/s. She invalidated mine as much as I did hers. She recklessly disregarded my feelings, in fact, by refusing to talk with me or set up a tea date and time. I asked her to meet with me and work things out. She refused. How, then, am I invalidating her feelings? By questioning her story (which was not a fact) that I told her to "shut up"?

I deeply respect people's feelings. But let us please not conflate feelings with facts! If a person says "I feel that SoAndSo has a bomb in his book bag, should SoAndSo be shot dead by the police on sight? Because of a feeling?

Should a friendship be abandoned recklessly, carelessly because somone "felt" that someone told them to "shut up" -- regardless of the FACT that such words were never uttered, nor any words similar to them?

I'd be invalidating Tammy's feelings if I were unwilling to converse with her about what she felt. She'd be invalidating mine if she insisted -- despite my knowledge to the contrary -- that I told her to "shut up". This invalidation of me would be much stronger if she refused to meet with me -- even with a third party present -- because she "feels" I am not trustworthy and may somehow harm her ( ... that I am unsafe).

I respect her feelings. I do not agree with her interpretation of the facts of what transpired that day.

Feelings are facts. Feelings are not facts. Both are true. If I "feel" that ice cubes are terribly hot and may burn my skin with their terrible heat, I'm simply confused about the nature of ice.

Oh, please do not confuse me with Star Trek's Spock character. I'm not him, even though I do use logic. I'm human and have feelings too.

I find it interesting that you latched onto my use of a word to describe something that it doesn't mean to you in order to invalidate my entire post. I'm wondering if you ignored Opulecent's much more coherent and thought out post (sorry about spelling the name wrong) because you could not logically rip it apart because of poor word choice.

You invalidated Tammy's perception of the event in question. Regardless of whether or not you said the words "shut up", her perception of the interaction was that you wanted her to be quiet and listen to your issues, which perception was formed from you talking over her and not leaving room in the conversation for her, which is how you described your conversation.

You also said you had this conversation, during which she told you that you had told her to shut up, when you ran into her at the grocery store. I'm sure she wasn't expecting to run into you there, and just like me using the word feelings to describe what I was trying to get across because I really should have been leaving for work (perception is much closer to what I was thinking), she probably wasn't as articulate as she'd normally be due to surprise and said the first words she thought of that conveyed how she perceived the event, regardless of whether you said those exact words.

You are correct, that there are some gender politics at work here, but I'm not sure it's exactly what you see it as being. The fact of the matter is that women encounter men who treat all women as less intelligent than they are. Thankfully most of the men I associate with don't have this attitude, and I've made sure the boys I've raised to adulthood understand why it's wrong to treat anyone this way, but I have encountered the attitude. And even if it's a more subtle form ("you're so emotional, you must be on your period" or how about the fact that it's an insult to tell a man that he throws like a girl?), it's something almost every woman has faced. To tell you the truth, my initial thought when I read your reply to me is that I might as well not reply, you're just going to tell me how wrong I am again because I used words that you don't agree with the way I used them. That is what I see as the gender politics going on with your friend feeling unsafe by herself with you (because you argue with her choice of words when she's trying to explain how the event made her feel) and you insisted on discussing the situation in a place and time she wasn't prepared to discuss it and wasn't expecting to have to discuss it. Regardless of whether you treat women in this way (because I have a feeling you're going to argue that you aren't like that and I'm just twisting your words), the reality is that there are men who treat women this way and when you act like them, regardless of whether you do it on purpose or not, you are going to trigger the feelings associated with this behavior, which in your friend's case, include feeling unsafe.

I know I originally posted to try and give you insight into a possible reason she might feel unsafe and I think that was the reason other women did also. To provide you with a glimpse of a perspective that you don't have because you haven't spent your life presenting as female, at least in the person you have chosen to represent yourself as here, which is the only reality of you we know.

Edited to add: I don't think you're required to allow her to attend an event you organize. You have every right to not want her there, since it's an intimate setting and you would not feel safe having her there while you are allowing yourself to be vulnerable because of this series of interactions with her. You have the right to your own boundaries also.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

Oh River. You sound upset and a little bit angry with your former friend.

I've read through the thread and wonder if you read Opalescent's excellent advice. I'm finding her words helpful just now in helping me to negotiate a somewhat similar situation to the one you are in.

Mine is with a work colleague. We are both women so no gender politics. My colleague is doing a fabulous job at dealing with a complex and frustrating job. I like her and we talk often so I'm aware that she's dealing with extreme stress in her family life as well as having to increase her working hours. So - I've been paying attention to the work she's doing as it's in an area I'm an expert in and have been trying to help her as best I can.

The thing is, she has not been experiencing it as helpful. To her I'm being overbearing and intrusive. She has spoken to her manager about her worries. She asked him not to speak to me but he felt that he needed to let me know. He took pains to assure me that he doesn't think I'm a problem and that the others we work with don't think I'm a problem.

The difficulty is that my colleague doesn't want to talk to me about it and she doesn't want her manager to officially talk to me either. The manager is not clear from the conversation exactly what it is I'm doing that is upsetting her and what she would prefer to happen. He suspects that much of the upset is spilling over from her personal life and that she is more sensitive just now than normal.

So - I don't think I am a problem. Nevertheless, my colleague who is excellent to work with finds me difficult. And we can't talk about it.

My plan is to change things. Offer her words of support and assurance that she is doing a good job - which she is. And otherwise leave her to get on with it. Also to invite her on a social event I've planned with a couple of friends who know her. She isn't part of our usual group but she could clearly be doing with some fun time and it's easy enough to invite her along (she took great pains to tell her manager how much she likes and values me on a personal level so I suspect that an invite to join us for lunch will be welcome).

Since I cannot communicate directly or indirectly with my colleague, I have agreed with her manager that I'll change my approach for a couple of months and then check back in with him to see if my colleague is feeling better.

Of course my preference would be that my colleague saw my attempts to help for what they are - attempts to help - but I'm not living in her head. Nor can I control who she wants to talk to about her feelings (even though it does upset me to hear that she's been saying things that I don't feel are true about me - things that portray me in a poor light). All I can control - now that I know there is an issue - is my behaviour. So that is what I'm going to do.

I think that you are kind of in the same boat with your former friend. Yes - you are right. She wasn't in any danger from you. You didn't say the words 'shut up' to her. Yet she was upset and bothered by the interaction and from what you have written here, you seem more worried about the effect that this is having on you then the effect it is having on your former friend. I wonder if that is part of her issue? Possibly? I don't know.

I hope you feel better soon.

IP

 

[PinkPig]

But I do understand her perspective. She wants me never to contact her or speak with her again. And yet she wants (as she has said in an email -- a fact I've not yet mentioned) to attend rather intimate events which I am the principal organizer of -- in which she apparently expects me to treat her as if none of this has transpired).

I have told her that if she wishes to attend these intimate gatherings which I am offering as a volunteer organizer, she (we together, with her willingness) will have to resolve this problem between us first. I think that's only fair. I also have my own feelings / needs / hurts -- since I too am a human being.

I think this is fair. If the events are rather intimate, I would think if she really felt unsafe around you, that she'd prefer not to attend.

As for the comments in the thread, I, also do not think they were meant to cast blame. More to help you understand other possible perspectives. Given that that relationship is over, I'd consider them more as information for future relationships. I agree with FA, there's a lot of good perspectives in this thread that could help all of us. My family of origin is loud and boisterous and passionate. That passion looks more like anger and aggression to some people....sometimes they're right, it is more anger and aggression....sometimes it really is just passion and dramatic flair....sometimes it's a little of both. But, if it feels scary and unsafe to someone from a quieter background, they're not going to care so much what my family intended, they just care how they feel.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from opalescent):

"Want to make someone feel crazy? Tell them their reality doesn't exist and not only doesn't exist but is wrong and should be such and such."

Well said. I think it's always counterproductive to argue about "what really happened" because memory is pliable and selective. And it works both ways; River's ex-friend also denied River's reality by asserting he said something he's sure he didn't say. In a situation like that, I might suggest saying something like, "I don't remember saying that, but maybe I did." This way neither person's recollection of events is denied.

It has been my experience that accepting some blame, even if undeserved, is often at the heart of diplomacy and can often defuse an explosive impasse. But to do that, both parties have to admit that their memory may be deceiving them. Heck even immediate perception can look completely different depending on viewpoint. Memory is even less reliable. This doesn't mean we're all crazy (maybe we are but that's a separate topic), it just means it's wise to take how each person sees things with a grain of salt. Even if the person in question is ourselves.

And once that concession has been made, the conversation should promptly shift over to discussing how each party feels, with recognition on both sides. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. I have been accused in the past of aggressive behavior, and, far from of summoning my sympathy, the accusation only made me feel trapped and threatened. Defensive. Angry. Sort of like a vicious circle.

I feel sympathetic towards both sides, River's side and his ex-friend's side.

 

[River]

I find it interesting that you latched onto my use of a word to describe something that it doesn't mean to you in order to invalidate my entire post. I'm wondering if you ignored Opulecent's much more coherent and thought out post (sorry about spelling the name wrong) because you could not logically rip it apart because of poor word choice.

If I point out that the word "invalidate" is an entirely inappropriate and inaccurate here, I'm sure that means I'm invalidating you, so perhaps I will not. To suggest that it "invalidates" your "entire post" is ... whatever it is.

To suggest that I "ignored" (really?) a post which I did not respond to suggests I have unlimited time to respond to posts -- which I do not. I must choose those I am able to respond to as time allows. Or is saying so somehow mean, angry, wrong, evil or "invalidating"?

Does anyone here own a dictionary? I suggest looking up the word "invalidate".

I cannot be held responsible for words put in my mouth by others. Perhaps the others should take some responsibility for putting those words in my mouth, instead?

I want to be sensitive to the fears, needs, wants, hurts, past injuries... etc. of people I engage with.

I do NOT want to be held responsible for their misunderstandings and distortions of my words or deeds.

If that makes me a male-dominating ass hole in some folks perceptions, let them enjoy that all they need to or want to. It has nothing to do with me.

If I say "It snowed today" that does not make me an asshole!

Sigh.

 

[FallenAngelina]

River, I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you seem to be misunderstanding the intentions of most posts in your thread here - which kinda illustrates the main point people are making, which is that each person sees interactions through his own perceptions, which sometimes greatly vary from what the other person intends. Often, there is no hammering out who is right and who is wrong and the two people just have to do the old school yard "shake hands and make up." It rarely matters who is "right" or "wrong" anyway.

 

[River]

I'm fully aware that certain people will read my previous post in such a light which suggests I'm a brute, a dimwit, emotionally insensitive, rude, mean, etc. But I'm none of these things! I simply want US ALL to relate to one another in relation to the actual words spoken and deeds done, rather than imagined events. Imagined events are NOT REAL. They are, by definition, imaginary.

 

[River]

River, I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you seem to be misunderstanding the intentions of most posts in your thread here - which kinda illustrates the main point people are making, which is that each person sees interactions through his own perceptions, which sometimes greatly vary from what the other person intends. Often, there is no hammering out who is right and who is wrong and the two people just have to do the old school yard "shake hands and make up." It rarely matters who is "right" or "wrong" anyway.

I totally agree that if someone imagines or feels as if a mountain is a mole hill that that person takes a mountain as a mole hill. I don't think such a person is wrong (other than factually) or bad, or whatever.

In other words, unkindness goes both ways. It is unkind to insist that somone did (or said) something they did not) ... and it is unkind not to be sensitive to what they intend to communicate when they misrepresent one's words or deeds.

Being kind means being both real and honest, truthful and vulnerable, open and heartful. Being male or female, young our old, black or white or green, does not excuse anyone from the basic premise of what it means to be kind and honest with others.

 

[River]

River, I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you seem to be misunderstanding the intentions of most posts in your thread here....

Do I?

I suspect if that's how it seems to you it is because I'm concerned with the facts of events rather than what people merely imagined happened. I honestly don't feel I can or should be held accountable for what someone IMAGINED I did or said, when in FACT I did not.

We live in a world where people routinely misunderstand and even misrepresent one another's actions and intentions. For me, the ground of things is the facts of what happened, not what someone imagined happened or was said. The facts are the only thing we have to prevent EVERYTHING from degenerating into pure imagination and "perception" (including highly distorted perceptions).

Almost everyone drives cars these days, so let me use cars as an example. If I imagine or "perceive" my gas tank as full, it does not really matter to the engine what I think or imagine about the fuel conditions. Believing that my tank is full will NOT allow my car to run (actually, I live car-free, but that's irrelevant to my point) when in FACT my tank is empty.
Having an empty gas tank means I'm stuck on the side of the road until I can put gas in the tank. That is a fact, not a guess -- not a "perception".

When people misrepresent one's words or actions, those misrepresentations are just that -- non-factual. And the one who is having non-factual things said about their words or actions cannot be honestly said to be in the fault for not honoring the "perceptions" of those who have no honest or clear sense of what was actually said or done.

For me to care about (even love) someone--including their feelings--who egregiously misrepresents or mis-perceives my words or actions is ... a perfectly appropriate and kind (and forgiving) thing to do. To apologize for something I never said or did is simply dishonest, even if it is in some ways pragmatic.




The point here is that fairness is hearing all sides of things. Those who will not hear all sides are likely to be terribly mistaken about them.

 

[GirlFromTexlahoma]

Maybe when Tammy said, "you told me to shut up" what she meant was "I felt like I was being told to shut up"?

(I realize that seems like splitting hairs. But we're already splitting hairs here arguing about feelings vs imagination vs perception vs belief.)

There have been plenty of times in my life I felt as though someone was telling me to shut up even though they never said those words. Interrupting me, talking over me, ignoring what I say - all those things alone or together can translate in my brain as the person telling me to shut up.

Do I actually hear them saying it? No. Am I aware that the person never uttered the words 'shut up'? Yes. Would I tell the person (or a third party) that they'd told me to shut up? Eh... I'd try to preface it with "it seemed like" or "I felt like" but I can imagine that if I was caught off guard in the grocery store I might not have the presence of mind to do that.

River, you don't have to apologize to her. You don't have to be her friend or care about her feelings or welcome her at your events. You can decide that you don't want to dedicate any time or energy to someone who doesn't perceive you the way you'd like to be perceived.

But if you do decide to try and salvage the friendship, apologizing would not be dishonest. You're not apologizing for saying the actual words 'shut up'. You're apologizing for behaving in a way that made her feel (perceive, imagine, believe, whatever) that she was being told to shut up.

 

[Hannahfluke]

If I point out that the word "invalidate" is an entirely inappropriate and inaccurate here, I'm sure that means I'm invalidating you, so perhaps I will not. To suggest that it "invalidates" your "entire post" is ... whatever it is.

To suggest that I "ignored" (really?) a post which I did not respond to suggests I have unlimited time to respond to posts -- which I do not. I must choose those I am able to respond to as time allows. Or is saying so somehow mean, angry, wrong, evil or "invalidating"?

Does anyone here own a dictionary? I suggest looking up the word "invalidate".

I cannot be held responsible for words put in my mouth by others. Perhaps the others should take some responsibility for putting those words in my mouth, instead?

I want to be sensitive to the fears, needs, wants, hurts, past injuries... etc. of people I engage with.

I do NOT want to be held responsible for their misunderstandings and distortions of my words or deeds.

If that makes me a male-dominating ass hole in some folks perceptions, let them enjoy that all they need to or want to. It has nothing to do with me.

If I say "It snowed today" that does not make me an asshole!

Sigh.

Dictionary.com states the following definitions for invalidate:
invalidate
[in-val-i-deyt]
verb (used with object), invalidated, invalidating.
1.
to render invalid; discredit.
2.
to deprive of legal force or efficacy; nullify.

I was using it to mean the first definition. You latched onto my use of the word feelings and how feelings are not facts and proceeded to discredit my entire idea because of poor word choice. Because the fact is you didn't say "shut up" and only facts matter and therefore anything I said is invalid because I'm not relying on facts.

You asked for feedback on why your friend had this reaction. All of us have been trying to help you with our feedback. That's all I've seen in this thread, suggestions that her reaction might be because of this or that. No matter how much you want people to take only the facts of your interactions into account, that's not the way interpersonal relationships work. We all have filters through which we relate to the world. The facts of any interaction are processed through the filters of all the people involved. No one is going to view the same interaction in exactly the way any other person does. If you're expecting that people will only rely on facts when processing their experiences with you and get frustrated with them when they don't, I'm surprised that you have only had this happen 4 times in 15 months. Not because I think you're a monster, but because people are generally self-centered and don't like being around others who consistently dismiss their views and ideas for any reason.

Just to be clear, I never said you were an asshole. I never said you were male-dominating either. I merely suggested that one of the filters your friend was using happens to be that some men do treat women like this and she was perhaps viewing your interaction through that filter, regardless of whether you are those things yourself because your actions, of dominating the conversation (which you did because you were agitated about the topic you were discussing, not because you're an asshole, I haven't had enough interactions with you to know whether you are or not) is often a trigger for that filter to come in to place.

 

[vinsanity0]

A person's reality is only what they perceive it to be. This is why eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Interview three witnesses and you will get three different stories. We are talking about human interaction here, not whether a car has gas in it.

 

[InfinitePossibility]

River - I feel for you. Your posts on this thread read as though you are suffering. It seems to me as if you very much desire to be right - to prove in some way that you did not tell you friend to shut up. Therefore, she was over reacting and you need not feel as if you must question yourself.

The thing is that there is no way to prove that. Even if you could - it could very well be that your friend still felt shut down by you without the words 'shut up' being spoken.

This blog went round my facebook friends some time ago. It's about cognitive biases. The things that our minds do to make life easier that also mean we cannot trust our own perceptions or consider ourselves rational. http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational

In the situation I face, it doesn't matter what my perception of the situation is. My perception is that my work colleague is struggling due to the stress in her life. She isn't doing the level of work I'd expect somebody of her experience to do. I have been more involved in her work than I would expect to be - not because I generally act that way but because I feel as though I am watching her spiral. I cannot entirely trust my perception because I am biased by having watched a previous colleague many years ago go through a similar thing. Extreme stress followed by being so nervous that he became immobile and couldn't work. I also cannot trust my perception because I know that this current colleague is incredibly nervous. She worries about losing her job and feels that if she rocks the boat at all, it is likely to happen. She has spoken to me numerous times about her certainty that she was almost sacked because she asked not to sit near to a colleague who has a guide dog - she's allergic to dogs. She also speaks often about her experiences of being bullied any time she stands up for herself.

So I believe I've been seeing her struggle and have been offering help. It's been frustrating because she's asked me about the same few things repeatedly and has not moved the work on significantly.

To her I'm too involved. She has told her manager that she desires autonomy and for me to back off.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or if she is right. Totally doesn't matter. What does matter is that she is a skilled and valuable person to have on our team. None of us want to lose her. If me leaving her to work on her own more will help with that, then I am happy to do so. I will also absorb her complaints and make no mention of my own perceptions. It may not be what I believe to be true right now but the bigger picture requires me to keep my truth to myself. Or at least to myself and a few close friends who I will discuss it with.

I am worried about it and will no doubt lose sleep. Not because I am upset that this colleague thinks badly of me. I don't try to make people think badly about me about it doesn't bother me overly much if some people do. I will lose sleep about my colleague. I sit next to her. I know what is going on in her life. I'm surprised she's still standing. I wouldn't be. I have been doing my best to shield her from our demanding customers and to keep people from harassing her about what she's working on. I won't be able to do that any longer and I am worried that giving her the autonomy she wants will result in my colleague becoming more unwell and her lack of ability to work becoming visible to others.

Hopefully none of my worries will turn out to be true.

IP