Loving Communication: Sending & Receiving Messages

a reply to: Bluesma

Was checking the thread quickly before hitting the shower.

However, I wanted to note that I agree with your post wholesale . . . every paragraph.

I'm not sure how much the average person WANTS to communicate--as in a true dialogue, mutual respect, mutual support etc.

Many seem so exhausted, selfish, stressed, insecure . . . etc. etc. etc. that about all they know how or care to do is SPEW junky stuff--often very angry and destructive stuff--however thinly disguised.

I'm still shocked at what a huge percentage (imho) of folks hereon come onto virtually any thread on any topic with guns blazing, brazenly-exaggeratedly-contrary, prickly, obnoxious, obstinate for no evident reason--other than the serious existential, psychological, emotional, spiritual angst and rot deep within--usually from a serious lack of FELT love the first 6 years of life.

It's a sad thing to observe. Most of my ancestors were farmers, truckers etc. They were smart folks but not formally educated at high levels. And, their vocabularies were not huge. They could be somewhat coarse and rough and tumble in their communications--even harsh.

Yet, they had a desire, as you articulated--to reach a synthesis, or consensus or some sort of mutual understanding--and would often repeatedly try to some lengths to get there.

That spirit/attitude seems to be greatly lacking from the culture and the body politic currently--to the hurt of all of us.

Thanks for your kind post.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Thanks for sharing that.

Perhaps you might take that exchange to a communications prof at your local college or university and see what they'd have to say about 'rigid and narrow' in that exchange.

originally posted by: Bluesma
My mother was a psychotherapist and my father was a psychoanalyst, and this is how they communicated. I got used to watching this and I thought it was normal.

YEA! LOL.

As I've noted . . . my heritage is more salt-of-the-earth blue collar folks. I was a book-worm that no one knew what to do with. I didn't think like anyone in my family. I didn't talk like anyone in my family. etc. etc.

And from at least 3 years of age, I was constantly bombarding my mother with questions about WHY did someone do what they did. To which she'd reply with great exasperation: "I don't KNOW! go out and play." Thankfully, over the years, I've learned a long list of reasons about why folks do what they do. LOL.

Actually, there are a fair number of folks--typically either well-read or highly educated--who do talk with significant precision and significant mutual respect from the outset.

Though even one of my supervisors once remarked about how much more precise my communications tended to be than even that of most therapists. LOL. I think he saw it as OCD.

Later out in the real world, I was shocked to find my husband had no idea how to communicate this way- it took us years to get good at it. I found out very few people around us know how to communicate like this, in fact. I don't know if it i because they are french or not.

Nor did my relatives. Thankfully, my RN wife was much more on-board with such and she was also a quick study.

No, I don't think it has to do with being French! LOL.

I think it has to do with being human . . . perhaps short-sighted, myopic, low insight, klunky (vis a vis communications) humans.

But I think it left me somewhat socially handicapped- I am overly sensitive and easily offended when people act brutish and uncivilized in communication. I see absolutely no reason or benefit to the sort of hostile exaggerations most people use, and without being precise, I not only do not understand what they mean to convey, but have no idea how to respond.

I can believe that.

Though, there's no significant reason to be offended. It's THEIR klunky problem. I think the Marisa Peer thread I posted in this forum offers some help with that issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree--absolutely no constructive benefit results from such hostile exaggerations.

However, there is a kind of intimidation effect that such brutish communications can foster. Other insecure folks can be scared off, intimidated, run away, cower etc. in the face of such communicative aggression. That can give short term and shallow satisfaction to the insecure folks DESPERATELY NEEDING to !!!WIN!!! whatever contest they imagined the communications to be about.

And, clearly, folks habitually given to aggressive attitudes, brutish attitudes in communications--in their word choices, sentence structures, tones--such folks ARE CLEARLY INSECURE, lacking in healthy confidence (vs bravado), lacking in sufficient self-worth to be generously gracious.

And, it seems like our horrific media and school systems have been worsening the problem for decades. . . . though there are bright spots here and there--they seem to increasingly be few and far between.

For me, all exchanges, even if they begin with an opposition or conflict, have for goal synthesis. Somehow, both are trying to reach a point of mutual comprehension and respect, some sort of meeting place, agreement or convergence is being sought. The precision is needed to fidn the ways we can weave them together.

I think that was truer in decades past . . . e.g. the 1950's.

Since the 1960's the oligarchy has pushed the dynamic and memes of !!!IN-YOUR-FACE-PROTEST-&-CONFRONTATION!!! almost to the max, if not well 'beyond the [former] max.'

All the more so to further destroy the family and truly connected, lasting, bonded relationships. They don't want either as competition for the ALL MIGHTY TYRANNICAL STATE. Sigh.

Now, huge proportions of the general populace simply have drunk the Kool-Aid about how

they SHOULD, they MUST, they HAVE to !!!DEMAND!!! their "rights" even where no such "rights" exist.

They feel it is their right to be emotionally and conversationally aggressive, prickly, in-your-face, !!!DEMANDING!!!, brutish, bwitches, drunken jerks, etc. etc. etc. Such stances and styles are not very contributive to lasting, healthily bonded and fulfilling relationships of mutual respect and support.

If people have had even a minimum of good rearing and/or good education or even mentoring--they may be constructively more above such hideous dynamics and habits. Then, they may be as you assert--seeking common ground, synthesis, consensus, mutual respect and supportiveness. Otherwise, such junk seems to be epidemic.

I think now, with age and experience, that a whole lot of exchanges in everyday life do not seek that at all- many people seem to have a taste for conflict, opposition and hostility and cultivate it through their modes of communicating.

I think it's much worse than a mere 'taste for conflict, opposition and hostility.'

It's an epidemic ADDICTION TO conflict, opposition, contrariness, hostility, brutishness, screaming and wailling-whining demands for presumed ENTITLEMENT etc.

I think it's a deeply hardwired, ATTACHMENT DISORDER caused literal brain damage--that has stunted, mangled, damaged the centers of the brain having to do with emotional expression and management of relationships. The brain damage in those regions has been verified by MRI studies.

It can take a lot of therapy and retraining to rewire those brain areas or other areas to substitute for the damaged ones.

Of course such folks are usually adamant that they 'DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM--it's those jerks over there with the problem!' sigh.

Congrats on having such wonderfully communicating parents. I'd rather have that problem in terms of socialization than to be brought up with an unthinking, insensitive, low insight, contrary, hostile, brutish communications style . . . by far.

a reply to: BO XIAN

imho, THAT'S entirely up to the implementation of the suggestions. It certainly CAN be robotic IF the folks attempting to practice such have not gone beyond rote memorization and robotic application. That can happen when folks are insecure and not confident--or just don't 'get it.'

Or are controlling, dismissive. Dialogues and relationships are two way, mindful and inclusive of each others feelings and desire, not one sided.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BO XIAN

imho, THAT'S entirely up to the implementation of the suggestions. It certainly CAN be robotic IF the folks attempting to practice such have not gone beyond rote memorization and robotic application. That can happen when folks are insecure and not confident--or just don't 'get it.'

Or are controlling, dismissive. Dialogues and relationships are two way, mindful and inclusive of each others feelings and desire, not one sided.

INDEED.

Controlling & dismissive . . . again . . . arise out of love buckets not sufficiently or at all filled the first 6-8 years of life. The resulting insecurity fosters the compulsive need to control, dismiss, deride, manipulate . . . And far too folks ever work such junk through . . . even after a long string of failed relationships and troubled work relationships.

I wonder what the dollar cost value to society and families is of bosses with such problems. In the last 100 years of great increase in the percentage of that problem--I'd guesstimate it must be in the $100's of billions, if not trillions, total.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Um... I don't know. I have been accused on this site of being too optimistic, but though I have my shortcomings in understanding some people preferences, and can sound sort of judgemental, deep down, I don't really share that view of the majority.

I suspect that a lot of people experience relationships through emotional exchange- and ultimately it doesn't matter what kind of emotion it is (positive or negative) as long as it is being felt and stimulated, the relationship feels active, alive, real.

So all attempts to "own" your emotions, be responsible for them, might feel to them like remaining distant, refusing to relate ?

I suspect (this is just a tentative hypothesis, I share it in hopes that others can provide more input and help me understand better) that it kinda boils down to whether a person identifies more with their emotions or their thoughts?

You know, like sharing your emotions with another is sharing yourself for someone who feels that is what/who we are?

I try to listen to the way people word things, and some will say "I am sad" and some say "I feel sad".

a reply to: BO XIAN

The resulting insecurity fosters the compulsive need to control, dismiss, deride, manipulate . . . And far too folks ever work such junk through . . . even after a long string of failed relationships and troubled work relationships.

Or they were never given those life coping skills when they were children. How to deal with emotions, rejection, peer pressure, etc.

Lots of kids grew up never 'growing up'. We see the results of that today, shallow, self-centered, un empathetic behavior. Older people cringe and go wha wha whaaat?! at the brutality of events unfolding in the world around us. Plausibly explained when we consider the world is being run by adult children.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: BO XIAN

Um... I don't know. I have been accused on this site of being too optimistic, but though I have my shortcomings in understanding some people preferences, and can sound sort of judgemental, deep down, I don't really share that view of the majority.

I don't observe you to be judgmental per my sense of such things.

I suspect that a lot of people experience relationships through emotional exchange- and ultimately it doesn't matter what kind of emotion it is (positive or negative) as long as it is being felt and stimulated, the relationship feels active, alive, real.

I think that's a very key issue. There is the THRILL SEEKING gene--a true genetic factor in such things.

There's also the business of those with serious RAD, being BLUNTED (in some respects--some of them perhaps key respects) in their emotional experience of the world and relationships--depending on the severity of the RAD and maybe somewhat on the flavor of such. Such folk will tend to virtually NEED !!!!DRAMA!!!! in order to feel the least bit alive, the least bit real--that they really do exist and matter somewhat in the world.

Without such !!!!DRAMA!!!! they will tend to feel flat, like no one notices them or pays attention to them--even that they kind of don't exist in the social world, at least. This can leave them starting verbal or other kinds of fights just to feel real and alive. i.e., they will create drama--even dramatically negative and destructive drama over and over and over in their lives--often with the same people--just to feel like they really do exist. I think a lot of that happens hereon but is blamed on all manner of other excuses.

It's kind of paradoxical. They can be hyper sensitive in some regards and blunted in others.

They can fly off the handle in outrage over some perceived slight--that was truly inconsequential or even non-existent. Yet, they can misperceive, be totally oblivious to their own heavy-handed impacts on those around the.

So all attempts to "own" your emotions, be responsible for them, might feel to them like remaining distant, refusing to relate ?

Certainly. Largely, imho, because such folks--particularly if they were brought up with an angry parent, a rage-a-holic etc. or perhaps a shrill perfectionist or a bitter, unforgiving mouthy parent--kind of don't feel alive unless the emotions of others are wound up--typically by the RAD person--unless the emotions of others are wound up to a fever pitch.

Often, after they get everyone around them ready to storm the gates with pitch forks, they feel normal and become quite calm and peaceful. LOL

Now, to be fair, a LOT of folks apply psychological suggestions from therapy in very wooden, sterile, dysfunctional ways. I think, in those cases, the therapist needs to keep a close eye on such things and coach them--perhaps even on the phone between sessions--until they 'get it.'

Also, taking on therapeutic suggestions in a shallow, distancing way--vs internalizing them, understanding them and acting them out in a knowing, emotive, congruent, constructive way--are two very different things.

I suspect (this is just a tentative hypothesis, I share it in hopes that others can provide more input and help me understand better) that it kinda boils down to whether a person identifies more with their emotions or their thoughts?

I don't know that it's all that conscious. Certainly many people are more 'in their head' and others are running around loose emoting all over everyone 12 times over. Some kind of balance is usually more useful, functional.

Typically, folks who identify more with their thoughts--do so as an ingrained way of being in the world. Sometimes an abusive parent was very painfully destructive all their growing up--WHILE BEING OUTRAGEOUSLY EMOTIONALLY EXPRESSIVE. That can result in a child being the same or the opposite. If the opposite, then there will likely be tons of unconscious blunting of affect.

It's like they made a deep and intense personal vow to never get hurt again by risking being a robust emotional being.

You know, like sharing your emotions with another is sharing yourself for someone who feels that is what/who we are?

Yeah. Without sharing emotions, exchanges can be very sterile and unsatisfying.

I try to listen to the way people word things, and some will say "I am sad" and some say "I feel sad".

And a growing body of evidence indicates that saying "I am . . . " goes a long way toward insuring that you really are just that--whatever that is.

Great post. Thanks.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: BO XIAN

The resulting insecurity fosters the compulsive need to control, dismiss, deride, manipulate . . . And far too folks ever work such junk through . . . even after a long string of failed relationships and troubled work relationships.

Or they were never given those life coping skills when they were children. How to deal with emotions, rejection, peer pressure, etc.

Lots of kids grew up never 'growing up'. We see the results of that today, shallow, self-centered, un empathetic behavior. Older people cringe and go wha wha whaaat?! at the brutality of events unfolding in the world around us. Plausibly explained when we consider the world is being run by adult children.

INDEED! INDEED!

CERTAINLY the inmates, bullies, children are running the asylum in our era.

With the epidemic of RAD, many folks have a ton of crappy emotional junk in a list of closets. They can't keep it all there--it tumbles out all over those around them day in and day out. But they keep themselves convinced that it's all hidden away and that it is crucial to their lives to keep up the front, the charade.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks for starting the thread and replies. That was two way thoughtful communication.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I didn't understand what you meant by RAD, and had to look it up. The de-sensitizing effect of certain ways of expression is fascinating to me because of the contrast I observe in cultures.

Here in France, people do not repress negative emotions at all- it is acceptable to start yelling angerly at a stranger if you step on their foot in public (and yes, that is not a typo- if a french person steps on your toe, they will not apologize, they will yell at you for having had your toe in their way).

This is where I got my sense that I am too sensitive and socially handicapped- I am highly impacted by these daily events, whereas the french people around me aren't at all. They don't seem to feel it, like they have really thick skins, so there's no need to work on the way one words things- calling someone the worst curse words you know could still be heard as an attempt to get to know you and make friends!

On the other hand, they are totally taken back by our american way of exaggerating positive emotions. The way we scream, laugh, jump up and down and label everything AWESOME! Is almost scary to them, like it feels emotionally draining to them. They repress and hide positive enthousiasm, out of respect for others.

Now this is where the point I am getting to in relation to your topic here.....

That sense of feeling emotionally drained when someone else is "being" very strong emotions of any sort!
("being" =acting out, as opposed to "speaking about" your feelings).

This might provide some clues to why people sometimes choose to "be" their feelings rather than "speak of" their feelings.
It has a way of provoking the observer to project their own feelings upon the actor- if two people feel angry, and one starts flipping out dramatically and irrationally, it can cause the other to suddenly feel less emotional force, as if it was "sucked up" by the other.

This has some possible benefits to a couple, in that they can pass their emotions from to the other. One can "carry" the emotions for the other, if there is some reason it aids them.
What I am getting at is that, this "ideal" sort of communication might be good for resolving certain issues, but in some cases, role playing and acting out emotionally could have it's place too, in a relationship.