It's not about dropping the statements, it's about understanding that you can't be certain of something you know so little about and possibly understanding how amusing it is to be certain of something you're absolutely wrong about.
There are plenty of things I know little about. You won’t see me posting on those topics. For things I do know about, I speak up. But to learn more I am willing to reach, to push the boundaries a little and think outside the box. Doing so is inherently risky.
I also think it might be a fruitful avenue of self-discovery for you to delve into how you can so positive that you're right when you are, in point of fact, wrong.
Like I said, I know that I step into risky territory at times. I have no problem with that. I have a bigger problem with being too conservative and waiting for confirmation of something. Sometimes confirmation is ok, but other times I see little reason for it.
I suspect you might discover how little one person actually knows about another...especially when they've never even met.
And you might discover how much you can know of another person by understanding patterns.
I would guess that getting your arms around this truth would be helpful to your life in general.
I doubt it. I prefer not to set my limitations on the assumption of how little I know but rather to push forward on how much I may know. We are not talking about hard, tangible items here, like money. We are only talking about ideas and mindsets.
You may also find that not being positive about things you can't know with positivity puts you in a more efficient mindset and makes you more productive.
Assumption on your part. I think I ALWAYS think in a positive, forward, non-fatalistic mode. Perhaps my assumptions, tone and style have deceived you of that part of me?
You spend a lot of energy urging others down paths of self-discovery so it seems like you'd be open to it yourself.
I’ve addressed this.
Red herring. Do you see what an utter deflection that is? When did I ever say or imply anything about wanting solid guaranteed advice?
No because it sounded to me like you did want solid, well grounded, certain advice.
A) All the effort you put forth defending and explaining yourself is at odds with the notion that you neither know nor care how others perceive you.
B) That statement is again, a dodge/deflection, but you did go on to address the actual point:
I like validation, just like everyone else. I like to see through a tough, confusing situation, especially to unravel issues that are tangled together. I find it very challenging. I like knowing that I can see what I can see, and then seeing it.
And if those who are way off the mark positively insist that they're right, how would you take that?
Three ways - either I misunderstood something about my underlying “corollaries,” I misunderstood the facts or the situation, or the person is in denial and cannot yet see.
Fearless has clearly made it her responsibility to know that difference rather than make it yours to guess, yet you keep right on guessing and you guarantee that you know more about her than she does herself.
She might know everything I posted about her. If so I haven’t heard it yet. If not, then I may have help to unravel something.
I'm not sure that anything so far has ticked me off, but whatever we choose to call it, it has everything to do with your authoritative tone on topics you're clearly not an authority on. That's what I've stated. I thought I stated it clearly. You're trying to twist that into something it's not. I suspect a strawman is right around the corner...
My authoritative tone is my business. How you decide to react to it is yours.
...and there it is. The answer is: because I choose to. What's that got to do with anything?
And if I chose to state that I know everything about the universe, or speak in an authoritative tone, then it is also because I choose to.
Are you sure that what I feel is a need? Could it perhaps be a want or a desire or a proclivity? I believe I choose to mostly because introspective people tend take it very seriously when someone makes forceful assertions about them or their situation. Support from someone who knows you is nice in the face of an unrelenting push from someone who doesn't know you.
Need, desire, want, proclivity, whatever…. all just variations of degree. I don’t know what you are saying here… you choose to seek out introspective people to make them feel better with your support when you think they are being pressured? Does this mean you look for the “underdog” so you can be the knight in shining armor?
I can't grok that sentence. Perhaps this is where you and I just diverge. You imply that my intentions are only honorable if there's something I stand to gain. That's not the way I understand the concept of honor.
What I meant is that I wonder if you look to gain something, which would make your intentions less that honorable.
Either you're managing to have quite a debate with someone who doesn't take a position or that's another strawman.
Oh, you take a position alright…. But only by following, not leading.
Be careful what you wish for.
Say it.
It seems to me you make a living pointing out the contradictions in what posters here say.
That would be nice, but I doubt many would pay money.
Wasn't your guarantee that "there's something there" with Fearless based on what you perceive as contradictions in what she's said?
I still stand by my statement that there are hidden issues needing to be brought out. How relevant they may be in the future is unknown.
It's the same thing; why discourage me from doing what you so often do? Is it more about who's the target of the action rather than the action itself?
What you and others are really upset about is that I dissect other people’s sitches but because I don’t post all my emotions and feelings on this board, there is not sufficient ammo available for you or others to “get even” with me. That is really the gist of the matter isn’t it? People feel attacked so they want a little revenge and I don’t give them the chance. It seems unfair, one sided and like a power play, right?
But rather than say that, everyone instead says Cobra is hurtful or insensitive, avoids self confrontation, deflects, whatever. Well I never mean to be hurtful or insensitive and at times try to say so in my posts. After some of the things recently said on this board, I think my comments are pretty tame. Yet I still draw fire.
It’s not about authoritative style, or confrontational comments. There is plenty of authority and confrontation to go around. Its about posters feeling that they have not been able to see inside me, that I have not made myself vulnerable enough, that there is no feeling of connection with me and therefore trust.
Corri also asked why I could not remove my blinders to she-who-shall-not-be-named.
Why you would ever think someone you don't know... interacting on an anonymous BB... and has specifically hunted down and selected YOU, above anyone else... would WANT and actively work toward your M failing, and on top of that, derive PLEASURE from such activity... is no where in my realm of understanding... not even remotely.
Because that is how it feels to me. It is for the same reason as what I just stated. Others may not feel trust in me. Well I have no trust in she-who-shall-not-be-named. This might be as much my issue as it is hers, but my experience on this board is that she prefers to hold back on her posts until something riles her enough that she jumps out with an attack. Then afterwards she makes a series of posts, being nice to members of the board to shore up support on “her side” while at the same time strutting around about how “tough” she is (some of this is in jest, but not all). After a little while she goes back into hiding until the need for another police action rises.
I could fight her and have done so in the past. It’s a waste of my time. She shows lots of anger and aggression. I find it very difficult to relate to any woman like that and still think she has anyone’s best interests at heart. Furthermore, if I see no good intentions, then I will at some point begin to suspect bad intentions. That is me. Call me paranoid if you like. As it is I’m just inviting another flame war.
The irony is that my decision to not trust she-who-shall-not-be-named is no different from other people’s decision to not trust me. So I don’t see why it should be outside your realm of understanding.
I stated earlier that I have little to no motivation to improve anything more about myself as it concerns my W or my M. Both are in a sustainable mode right now and I feel I have made major changes already. If things turn bad again, there might be enough pain for me to reevaluate. But for now I choose not to.
To be completely honest, when Phase3 followed Heather to this board and spent a fair amount of energy defending her, then when things got a little hot, changed names, I was suspicious too.
I no longer consider such suspicions viable, and am personally glad that they were unfounded as Burgbud has made a lot of positive contributions to this board.
Cobra, you must be joking about MrsNOP. I think the real problem is she is an strong, intelligent woman that doesn't get overly emotional when you attack her POV, and that confuses you and you go a bit overboard in trying to assert your manliness. Frankly its obvious to me that it takes a woman of that level of strength to have a successful R with NOPkins, and perhaps that is not something you are familiar with.
Of course, I guess you'll just say that I'm one of the horde of "yes men" that she has converted by being nice to me.
But hey, maybe this post is all just more unprovable wild assertions.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Cobra isn't interested in growing or changing... he doesn't trust Mrs. Nop because that's just how he feels about her 'attack' type style. And you can't [i]make him change how he feels.
But if he thinks he's got something from his vast store of relationship knowledge and references that you, in his certain determination thinks you should know, he's going to tell you, in any way he chooses, whether you agree or not. And he doesn't care whether you think he's does it in an authoritative or vulnerable style.
His W and His M are in a sustainable mode right now and he's read all the Art of a Warrior Relationship type books he needs to force himself in as leader. If things turn bad again, there might be enough pain involved for him (or someone) to reevaluate war plans.
But for now he chooses not to.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Jeese, Chrome, it can't get any clearer than that.... I'm sure you are implementing this plan at home as we speak.
(Cobra) And you might discover how much you can know of another person by understanding patterns.
Patterns are certainly useful, but to what extent? You seem to believe they're completely defining. Once you detect the pattern someone fits into, you believe you understand them. I believe the patterns are guidelines; maybe a first step to understanding somebody.
Another word for "pattern", in this context, is "box". You pushed Fearless until she gave you enough information to fit her into your box. That's very limiting. If you pushed further, you might find she no longer fits your pattern. If you only push until a person fits an existing pattern your thinking is very much inside the box, not outside.
For a long time I thought very much like you do. I wanted to figure people out and pigeonhole them so I could go comfortably about my life having everything in its appropriate spot. If nothing else, the process of my divorce showed me that people don't fit so readily into the patterns I assign them...the differences in behavior is greater than the similarities. I now believe the better path is to steer my own way in the world and let those around me act as they will without having to categorize them. I once tried to organize and categorize everything in my world so that I could see my path thru it in advance. Now I focus more on learning how to adapt and correct my navigation in response to whatever the world throws at me. Allowing the world to be whatever it is is certainly more chaotic and less comfortable than my old way, but it seems more congruent with reality and more likely to be effective in the long run. YMMV.
Assumption on your part. I think I ALWAYS think in a positive, forward, non-fatalistic mode.
We're using "positive" in different manners. I think approaching things with a positive mindset is very helpful. I think being positive about something you can't actually be positive about is counterproductive. It's self-delusion.
No because it sounded to me like you did want solid, well grounded, certain advice.
What did I say that sounded like that to you? I suspect this notion was brought to the discussion by you out of whole cloth, but I'm willing to be shown wrong.
Three ways - either I misunderstood something about my underlying "corollaries," I misunderstood the facts or the situation, or the person is in denial and cannot yet see.
The fourth way is that *you* could be in denial and not yet able to see.
She might know everything I posted about her. If so I haven't heard it yet. If not, then I may have help to unravel something.
It's also quite possible that not everything you've posted about her is the truth about her. It may simply be that she knows herself better than you do and so when you post something about her that isn't right, she knows it.
Need, desire, want, proclivity, whatever... all just variations of degree.
A breeze, a gust and a hurricane are all just variations of degree as well. Degree is often important especially in an open dialog. You've made it clear, however, that you're not interested in open dialog. Your purpose is to convince the other party you're correct. What they say in response is only heard by you if it leads you to an alternative way of making your point. That's all well and fine, but most here use the forum for two-way, open discussion. Now that I understand your perspective your manner is easier to understand.
Oh, you take a position alright... But only by following, not leading.
If you're correct, so what?
Be careful what you wish for.
Say it
Heh. I didn't have anything about you in mind. When I get to talking about myself and my ideas and theories it can quickly turn into a deluge. Most of my current thoughts and ideas are relevant to my life. Since my life doesn't currently feature a relationship and since my interest in being in a relationship has taken a nose dive lately (I'm having a lot of fun doing whatever I want to do), my musings would be of little value to this forum. I still learn enough here to make it worth my while to hang around. The NMMNG book recommendation was worth the price of admission all on its own.
What you and others are really upset about is that I dissect other people's sitches but because I don't post all my emotions and feelings on this board, there is not sufficient ammo available for you or others to "get even" with me.
No, Cobra, what I'm really upset about is whatever I say I'm upset about. You can declare it to be something else if that makes you happy or makes your world more manageable but that doesn't change the truth. You seem to have a bit of a persecution complex. I think they make an ointment for that.
It's not about authoritative style, or confrontational comments.
For me it's about your saying you know things that are either unknowable or incorrect.
It's also about you writing paragraphs like this:
Quote:
IMO, you are still espousing a very feminist mantra, one in which you think men need to be in touch with a woman's emotions, that the men should be focused on the woman's feelings for in that way conflict can be minimized and both will feel validated, secure and able to stand in a differentiated mode. But you model is not the kind of man I want to be or the kind of man I think anyone should be. I feel that a part of your "message" has a subtle emasculation of men that sort of turns me off the more I think of it. Sorry, that's just how I feel. I'm also beginning to develop suspicions why your H left you.
...and then telling us that the "suspicions" you allude to are that Fearless and her H were at different levels of differentiation. Paragraphs generally consist of sentences that are relevant to each other and your writing sticks to that convention. Right?
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
LOL! If you think I use such a simplistic model of putting people into predefined, static boxes, then you seriously underestimate me. Modeling or “pigeonholing” can be extremely important, though it can be harmful too, as you point out. The benefit to “pigeonholing” is that it allows you to sink a post in the ground from which measurements and variations can be made. In science, a working hypothesis is central to research. With relationships, it is the same.
As in science, a hypothesis must be dynamic, open to change, new ideas, the unknown. A finite system of boxes can exclude possibilities, lead to a very narrow view of life. But does that mean modeling or pigeonholing is the problem? Maybe yes maybe no. I think the problem you speak of is not the concept of categorizing behaviors and ways of thinking but the system used to create and maintain those “boxes.” You say that you used to put people in convenient little boxes and later came to see how limiting that was. I think that maybe you did not build a very robust model for “boxing” people.
Anything dealing with human emotion is going to be extremely complicated. Once you figure out a system, it changes. There is no one true answer. Whatever set of boxes you create today for one group of people will need to be altered for changes in age, race , socio-economic class, nationality, religion, historical experiences, and who knows what else. All of that will need to change again as time goes by.
My “model” of boxes is closer to no model at all in that I think of it as a multidimensional matrix, where one layer overlaps another in all directions, where there may be horizontal or vertical layers, where some situations may have only one “layer” but other may have multiple “layers.” These “layers” are nothing more than different possible combinations of actions/reactions that all begin with a common point and that is fear. There can be different types of fear, but I see all those as variations on a theme.
I believe fear is inherent in everyone. It is a human condition. There is no such thing as a person without fear. The type of fear each person has is determined by genetics and environment, the biggest factor being the influence of our parents (on again excepting personality disorders or chemical imbalances). That fear then mixes with our inherent personality and our FOO experience to create all the many dysfunctions we see all over this board. The variety is limitless. It can result in people being introverted, extroverted, angry, violent, timid and withdrawn, the class clown, the addict or even the perfectionist. But each of these types of behaviors is only a manifestation. Treating the behavior is what CBT is all about. It can help but unless the connection is made to the underlying fear, CBT is only a bandage. The root of the behavior is not touched.
The one “box” that I am certain exists in everyone is the box at the bottom of my matrix and that is the fear box. So while all the different manifestations can swirl and morph into different effects, keeping focus on the one true known quantity – fear- is what makes my model work in my mind and keeps me on track when looking at all situations. In the end it is very simple. But it is also all encompassing. It can be specific to a particular situation or very general across many type of relationships.
In this way I do not think my “model” is limiting. It helps me to categorize behaviors, bring better understanding to why people react as they do, cut through seeming chaos and find common themes and patterns. It is a way of trying to see what one currently does not see. It is not a simple “box” system at all.
You say that putting people into boxes is a way to control the unknown, that by fitting patterns I can hope to predict the future, minimize risk, maximize control, avoid fear. That might be true. But I think any system that helps to explain the unknown reduces risk and fear. That is a good thing. Systems can give a sense of control by at least understanding why others act as they do. That is also a good thing because it helps you to not engage and to stay out of the pit. Your criticism of a “box” system is valid if such a system is only intended to give the creator a false sense of control without better understanding. But your criticism can also be made of a legitimate system that helps to promote understanding and growth. How will you, an outsider, know the difference?
I agree with you in that taking life as it comes, that learning to react to situations rather than trying to control and “box” them can be a good approach to relationships. But it can also become passive and reactive. For some people this is fine. For others, they may need to develop more assertiveness, to learn to shape their future rather than drift with the tide. These people may have accepted what comes at them for too long, and that is their way of escape and a core issue to be addressed. It all depends on the person.
Take Fearless for instance. I was certain there was something deeper she was dealing with because all people have fear at their core. She is no different. The only question I had was which path did her fear take as it made its way through the “matrix.” It did not appear to be taking the path of violence or anger, addiction or sexual affairs, timidity or withdrawal. She did appear to be a people pleaser, a perfectionist, model child and a peacemaker, all of which fall into the same “quadrant” or theme of the matrix, as I see it.
Like everything else, all those behaviors are fear driven. Her type of fear may not be fear of physical punishment, or being yelled at, or abused. Maybe Fearless was conditioned by her FOO to have a fear of not gaining approval and validation, fear of disappearing, fear of losing herself through the engulfment washing over her from her mother/grandmother. Whatever the actual fear at work with her, I am certain that this fear exists.
Identifying the type of fear can be important for knowing how to deal with the problem because the next question is to ask why that particular fear came to exist in the first place? I think Fearless had a narcissistic family setting to deal with as a child. If this is true and if she can come to recognize this and the dysfunction in her family, come to accept the faults of her parents and the damage they caused her, then she can recognize why she developed into a perfectionist and exactly what it is that she is trying to avoid and what she was trying to correct by being perfectionistic. If she cannot accept this and instead prefers to focus only on her perfectionism, then I believe she will have a long struggle because the root cause will keep seeping forth and counteracting all her efforts.
That becomes an exercise in futility and her improvements can only endure as long as she has the strength to do the work. We see that same pattern in so many other couples here. They don’t want to get to the root of their problems and tackle the hard stuff, so the marriage can only improve for a period of time, while the latest behavior modification stays in place. Ultimately most relationships do not keep these modifications going for too long before reverting to old behaviors, then a new “cure” must be found and put into practice, and on and on. That model of understanding is flawed IMO.
Cobra, It might be interesting for you to go back and study the enneagram. Each personality type is defined by a fear. I think it's helpful to recognize our own and our partner's core fear, to better understand how we can comfort, rather than provoke, one another.
Then again, at times we are going to have to provoke our spouses...that is the heart of differentiation, to do what we as individuals want/need to do in spite of our spouse's reaction.
( Lou just did an example of this...went to the DC seminar, provoking BB, but doing it nayway to learn and grow)>
