Over the past few weeks I've had a couple of misunderstandings with my roommate (a super-nice girl) and they seem pretty generally to have stemmed from a little bit of miscommunication and a whole mess of assumptions. Basically, I find myself screwing up because I'm operating on the basis of information that I assume to be true... and it's not. So how do I stop? Making assumptions is a pretty ingrained practice, an efficiency strategy/coping mechanism - kind of the 'organic' version of computer cookies. (Mmmm, cookies.) A lot of the time it works just fine; you make decisions and move forward based on things that have happened before, or 'common sense', and save yourself the trouble of checking and double-checking day-to-day details. So how do you change the practice when you're getting the details wrong and making mistakes due to that faulty information?
I have a theory.
I've been writing about this in the journal part of my school notebook, and just today I had another screw-up (at least this time it was only a problem for myself, not anyone else). I decided to write it out here to remind myself to work on applying it a little better - one of my assumptions, I think, is that my memory is as good as it's ever been, when in all honesty it's starting to slip. I need the reminders. (I am my mother's daughter.) ((Sorry, Mom.)) Part of the trick to all of this is that I'm not always aware that I'm making an assumption about something that should actually be questioned. The challenge, then, is to create a new paradigm in which I actively (and routinely) question everything about which an assumption would otherwise be made.
I think: As with most things, communication is key. And more than that, transparency may be key to communication. Yes, my roommate and I need to get into the habit of talking more often if we're going to communicate better (duh, for a start). Once we're talking, transparency may mean adopting a sort of running Twitter feed: if I am very clear about my activities and intentions (whether or not they may affect someone else) I may become very boring and not at all sought after at parties, BUT the people I'm communicating with will be more able and motivated to correct assumptions I may not have recognized in order to question.
For example, if you need something from me and you tell me you're leaving 'around' a certain time; and if I say not only 'I'm going to run out to take care of that errand for you' but also '...and I thought I'd stop at the store for a few groceries while I'm out...' (because I assume that you are taking your car and that your schedule isn't particularly pressing); then you can follow up with 'I'm not sure I can wait that long - my ride will be here in five minutes!' which tells me that you are a) traveling with other people, and b) that your schedule is actually defined. My assumptions are corrected because you were able to give me information I didn't realize I needed, I can run the errand without detours and you head off happy. If I operate under a policy of 'full disclosure' instead of 'minimal effort' I may help to create fewer misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Note to self: Anyone wishing to stop making assumptions (or, operating as though assumptions are always true) must be prepared to be corrected, sometimes indignantly, as transparent communication disrupts the assumptions of those you're communicating with. If, on the other hand, those corrections are not made, than transparent communication on your part means you're off the hook responsibility-wise if information isn't shared. Also, if you pay more attention, listen more carefully, observe body language, (etc...) you'll become more skillful at figuring out when questions are needed. And, really, it never hurts to ask. Or, at least, it hurts more later if you don't ask.
Ergo: When you think you know something, check on it. (Isn't that the old carpenter's rule? 'Measure twice, cut once'?) Bus schedules, birthdays, study topics, quoting somebody... even if you think you know, check. (That way you won't be standing out in the cold for half an hour, stewing over a bus that hasn't shown up, when all you had to do was walk ten feet to look at the posted schedule and realize you were wrong - there wasn't a bus scheduled to arrive then, doofus - and you'd still have had time to work something else out.)
Also: be transparent, particularly in regards to plans and immediate/future activities. It's far more frustrating to try to fix something you messed up later!
Okay, more later... I think I'd better go check one more thing for my schedule for next week! (And then maybe look at the whole thing again...)
* * * * *
Christmas video reviews starting soon! (Hopefully tomorrow!)
*
Showing posts with label deep thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deep thoughts. Show all posts
December 04, 2011
May 02, 2010
Sunday Snippet - Nice is Overrated
From a Sunday School discussion re: Balaam and the Ass -
God is not nice. He is kind, loving, compassionate, forgiving, generous, patient, and many, many other wonderful things. He is not, however, nice. He does not pander to the feelings and sensibilities of others, and has no problem holding His position. He does not dither, or waver, or lead anyone on - He tells it like it is, and kindly and lovingly expects all of us to buck up and like it. He trusts that we will trust Him, and follow where He leads without having to always be babied along. He supports and guides and answers and listens, and does not waste anyone's time with "nice". "Magnificent", "awesome" and "overwhelming" are much more in His line. God is completely empathetic - He understands perfectly everything we feel and experience, and will not leave us alone unless we ask Him to... and generally not even then.
* * * * *
I would like to be a valiant, immovable friend. I would like to be known as one who has a kind, loving heart. I'm no longer so concerned about being "nice".
August 23, 2009
Arrested Development Revisited (The Condition, Not the TV Show)
Interesting.
I didn't plan to see the movie, and that plan hasn't changed - and I'm more interested now in asking the same question the reviewer does. Retro is for fashion and design influences, not gender attitudes and perceptions. I can think of a few favorite books where the heroine becomes the person she wants to be AND gets the guy, and doesn't do what she does in order to get the guy. I can think of a lot of movies where the girl gives up everything to get the guy - are there any out there that illustrate the point the reviewer is talking about? In Legally Blonde, the fact that Elle ends up dating Emmett is something of an afterthought - she doesn't sacrifice for him, or compromise her goals or change her vision of who she can be in order to be with him.
Illustrate, discuss - is there hope for Hollywood and the Happily Ever After?
I didn't plan to see the movie, and that plan hasn't changed - and I'm more interested now in asking the same question the reviewer does. Retro is for fashion and design influences, not gender attitudes and perceptions. I can think of a few favorite books where the heroine becomes the person she wants to be AND gets the guy, and doesn't do what she does in order to get the guy. I can think of a lot of movies where the girl gives up everything to get the guy - are there any out there that illustrate the point the reviewer is talking about? In Legally Blonde, the fact that Elle ends up dating Emmett is something of an afterthought - she doesn't sacrifice for him, or compromise her goals or change her vision of who she can be in order to be with him.
Illustrate, discuss - is there hope for Hollywood and the Happily Ever After?
July 21, 2009
Official Geekhood
I saw Star Trek for the fourth time tonight (yes, it's still in a few theaters).
Liked it very nearly as much as I did the first time.
Wowsers.
* * * * *
After talking to a friend today, I've decided to try pre-natal vitamins to make my hair grow, rather than cutting it short. I'll get a good "trim" just before I leave for school.
* * * * *
"School", you say? Details coming soon.
* * * * *
"Redouble" is an odd word, and I don't think it's used correctly. Say, for example, the phrase "Redouble your efforts" - that would imply that you'd already been told to "double your efforts" and that's just not something you hear often. Plus, if you're going to redouble something, you're doubling it again - or double-doubling, if you will... which could be acurately described as "double-squaring" or "quadrupling". Telling someone to quadruple their efforts has the benefit of specificity (though telling someone to double-squared their efforts is just silly), especially if those efforts have already been doubled... but I suppose it smacks of overkill. "Redouble" is merely redundant. (Speaking of, why don't you ever hear the word "dundant"?)
Liked it very nearly as much as I did the first time.
Wowsers.
"She's seen it HOW many times? Sheesh, I could never sit still THAT long!"
* * * * *
* * * * *
After talking to a friend today, I've decided to try pre-natal vitamins to make my hair grow, rather than cutting it short. I'll get a good "trim" just before I leave for school.
* * * * *
"School", you say? Details coming soon.
* * * * *
"Redouble" is an odd word, and I don't think it's used correctly. Say, for example, the phrase "Redouble your efforts" - that would imply that you'd already been told to "double your efforts" and that's just not something you hear often. Plus, if you're going to redouble something, you're doubling it again - or double-doubling, if you will... which could be acurately described as "double-squaring" or "quadrupling". Telling someone to quadruple their efforts has the benefit of specificity (though telling someone to double-squared their efforts is just silly), especially if those efforts have already been doubled... but I suppose it smacks of overkill. "Redouble" is merely redundant. (Speaking of, why don't you ever hear the word "dundant"?)
October 23, 2008
Day 23 - The "Deep Thoughts" Post
In which we shall see: Lots and lots of words. Really. Read at your own risk.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Over the last couple of months several major happenings and issues have come to the forefront of national and international awareness - financial crisis, elections, and Proposition 8. From various conversations (online and in RL) with intelligent, concerned individuals, and from my own reading of pertinent articles and commentary, I have come to a few conclusions. These conclusions are my own supposition and opinion, and I am no authority nor representative voice for any organization involved. These are my own thoughts and feelings.
A friend recently asked, “So, who are you going to vote for?” This question led to an hour-long discussion of some of those issues mentioned above. My answer is that I’m still working on it – this seems to be an election that REQUIRES more research and study than any I’ve seen before. It also leads to the idea of inevitability – living in a particular state, why should a person vote when the outcome for that state is essentially determined? I’ve decided that voting is not necessarily about contributing to the end result (any more than one grain of sand contributes to the character of an entire beach) but about knowing for oneself just what one is willing to support and stand up for. I think that before much longer it will become vital for individuals to decide for themselves who they are and what they believe and not succumb to any kind of “flow” or “wave”. I believe that voting today represents the opportunity for us to become deliberate, decisive, regardless of whether or not we “win”.
That conversation, like many others recently, turned to Proposition 8. I know that much has been criticized in the decision of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to actively (and very unusually) step forward and encourage its members in California to vote “yes” for this amendment that will “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” I have carefully read The Divine Institution of Marriage, the article produced by the Church to state its position on this proposition, and discussed at length the ramifications of such a position.
Here’s what I think.
I do not believe that the Church is in any way biased against or “out to get” anyone who is same-sex oriented. It is also my belief that in the end the Church is also not opposing same-sex marriage in and of itself, as such a marriage has become essentially a civil ceremony. For thousands of years religion (God, the Bible, prophets) have taught that such a union is wrong. From there, the choice to participate in such behavior belongs to the individuals involved, not the Church or any other entity. Choice, of all things, is sacred. However, at times the consequences of choices can adversely affect the future lives and choices of others – and this is the point at which regulations are installed. For example, one friend argued that while the idea of abortion was repulsive to them, they were also very reluctant to restrict a person’s freedom regarding the use of their own body. My response is that while, yes, a person has the right to choose their own behaviors and activities, they do not have the right to cut off the potential choices another might make by prematurely ending a life. (Please do not draw any crazy conclusions that I am trying to say that all same-sex oriented individuals support abortion. The example here is “freedom of choice” vs. “accepting consequences and restricting some personal freedoms for the safety and benefit of others.” Also, this example refers to choices made, not to consequences imposed by the choices of others, or instances where no choice is involved.)
So, Proposition 8 – In my opinion the Church is not looking to restrict same-sex marriage because it is a “moral” or “religious” issue. It is both those things, but again, all are free to choose their own lifestyle. However – the CHILDREN that will be raised in those families will not be afforded the same opportunities, and this is the point from which I believe the Church’s concern commences. Current political policy dictates that if same-sex marriage becomes an accepted practice, schools will be OBLIGATED to teach that such behavior is a valid, accepted lifestyle (rather than an issue of moral choice), and parents will have no recourse to oppose such teaching. Additionally, children in such families, no matter how well loved and raised, will never be able to be sealed eternally to their parents. One debater argued that the children could always choose for themselves to marry a spouse in the temple – but if parents are not living in agreement with the teachings of the Church, what is the likelihood that the children will? These concerns have been in the national eye for a relatively short period of time; certainly not long enough for any incisive conclusions about the cause-and-effect of same-sex parenting on children to be reached. Consider this: when the Word of Wisdom was given in the early days of the Church it stood in opposition to several accepted practices of the day. Over a hundred years later it has been accepted by secular medical practitioners as an exemplary way to live, and scientifically demonstrated to uphold the principles of health it promised back in the 1800’s. It was given by a prophet, and those who followed it were upheld in their choice.
The bottom line is this: The Church has made a request of its members in the current election in California, and those who follow will be upheld in their choice. Honestly, this direction from the Church may not succeed in confirming Proposition 8. Those who vote “yes”, though, will have the satisfaction of defending their beliefs and the security of knowing they have listened to the prophet. These are decisions we all need to ponder and stand prepared to make – I also believe the time is coming that we will ALL be required to make them.
For additional (and beautifully written!) commentary on faith, individuality, and obedience, go here, here, then here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Over the last couple of months several major happenings and issues have come to the forefront of national and international awareness - financial crisis, elections, and Proposition 8. From various conversations (online and in RL) with intelligent, concerned individuals, and from my own reading of pertinent articles and commentary, I have come to a few conclusions. These conclusions are my own supposition and opinion, and I am no authority nor representative voice for any organization involved. These are my own thoughts and feelings.
A friend recently asked, “So, who are you going to vote for?” This question led to an hour-long discussion of some of those issues mentioned above. My answer is that I’m still working on it – this seems to be an election that REQUIRES more research and study than any I’ve seen before. It also leads to the idea of inevitability – living in a particular state, why should a person vote when the outcome for that state is essentially determined? I’ve decided that voting is not necessarily about contributing to the end result (any more than one grain of sand contributes to the character of an entire beach) but about knowing for oneself just what one is willing to support and stand up for. I think that before much longer it will become vital for individuals to decide for themselves who they are and what they believe and not succumb to any kind of “flow” or “wave”. I believe that voting today represents the opportunity for us to become deliberate, decisive, regardless of whether or not we “win”.
That conversation, like many others recently, turned to Proposition 8. I know that much has been criticized in the decision of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to actively (and very unusually) step forward and encourage its members in California to vote “yes” for this amendment that will “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” I have carefully read The Divine Institution of Marriage, the article produced by the Church to state its position on this proposition, and discussed at length the ramifications of such a position.
Here’s what I think.
I do not believe that the Church is in any way biased against or “out to get” anyone who is same-sex oriented. It is also my belief that in the end the Church is also not opposing same-sex marriage in and of itself, as such a marriage has become essentially a civil ceremony. For thousands of years religion (God, the Bible, prophets) have taught that such a union is wrong. From there, the choice to participate in such behavior belongs to the individuals involved, not the Church or any other entity. Choice, of all things, is sacred. However, at times the consequences of choices can adversely affect the future lives and choices of others – and this is the point at which regulations are installed. For example, one friend argued that while the idea of abortion was repulsive to them, they were also very reluctant to restrict a person’s freedom regarding the use of their own body. My response is that while, yes, a person has the right to choose their own behaviors and activities, they do not have the right to cut off the potential choices another might make by prematurely ending a life. (Please do not draw any crazy conclusions that I am trying to say that all same-sex oriented individuals support abortion. The example here is “freedom of choice” vs. “accepting consequences and restricting some personal freedoms for the safety and benefit of others.” Also, this example refers to choices made, not to consequences imposed by the choices of others, or instances where no choice is involved.)
So, Proposition 8 – In my opinion the Church is not looking to restrict same-sex marriage because it is a “moral” or “religious” issue. It is both those things, but again, all are free to choose their own lifestyle. However – the CHILDREN that will be raised in those families will not be afforded the same opportunities, and this is the point from which I believe the Church’s concern commences. Current political policy dictates that if same-sex marriage becomes an accepted practice, schools will be OBLIGATED to teach that such behavior is a valid, accepted lifestyle (rather than an issue of moral choice), and parents will have no recourse to oppose such teaching. Additionally, children in such families, no matter how well loved and raised, will never be able to be sealed eternally to their parents. One debater argued that the children could always choose for themselves to marry a spouse in the temple – but if parents are not living in agreement with the teachings of the Church, what is the likelihood that the children will? These concerns have been in the national eye for a relatively short period of time; certainly not long enough for any incisive conclusions about the cause-and-effect of same-sex parenting on children to be reached. Consider this: when the Word of Wisdom was given in the early days of the Church it stood in opposition to several accepted practices of the day. Over a hundred years later it has been accepted by secular medical practitioners as an exemplary way to live, and scientifically demonstrated to uphold the principles of health it promised back in the 1800’s. It was given by a prophet, and those who followed it were upheld in their choice.
The bottom line is this: The Church has made a request of its members in the current election in California, and those who follow will be upheld in their choice. Honestly, this direction from the Church may not succeed in confirming Proposition 8. Those who vote “yes”, though, will have the satisfaction of defending their beliefs and the security of knowing they have listened to the prophet. These are decisions we all need to ponder and stand prepared to make – I also believe the time is coming that we will ALL be required to make them.
For additional (and beautifully written!) commentary on faith, individuality, and obedience, go here, here, then here.
October 17, 2008
Day 17 - The Appetizer
I had a very interesting (and long) conversation last night that went right along with some heavy topics I've been ruminating about lately, including: politics, the election, Palin, Biden, Obama (not so much McCain), fatalism, sympathy, Proposition 8, revelation, doctrine, freedom, rights, choices, and freedom of choice (to sum up). I haven't had a chance yet today to post about the bottom line, so until I do I wanted to spread around this photo that a friend of mine took of a sidebar in a magazine article:
Once you get past the initial *gasp!* it's really not all that surprising, is it? I mean, who HASN'T been there? (Or, to be honest, isn't there still?)
Once you get past the initial *gasp!* it's really not all that surprising, is it? I mean, who HASN'T been there? (Or, to be honest, isn't there still?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)