As we all know, people are unique in many ways.
The unfortunate aspect about much of our human interactions
is that we perceive, treat and converse with people as if they internally operate
in the same ways in which we internally operate. We also assume that their observable external
behaviors and language are underpinned by the same internal constructs in which we would
imagine performing those same external behaviors and language.
We are often not consciously aware of the assumptions we make. . . projecting our perceived parallel internal states and emotions onto our observations of external other. This “comparing of
people’s outsides to our insides” is a fundamental flaw in communication, though
it doesn’t have to be with an expanded awareness of it.
Another flaw in communication leading to decreased
connection and increased friction is that we make perceptions and
judgments of other based on one or two shared items provided by the communicator. We use these one or two shared items to paint an entire picture. In our minds, we use a metaphorical "two colors" to paint an
entire picture, not realizing there are many other colors on the internal palate of "other."
Imagine a finished metaphorical painting, or mental picture consisting
of orange and yellow. How different
would that finished painting look in comparison to a (mental) picture with orange,
yellow, blue, green and purple. We often
fail to see other's internal colors of the bigger picture's pallette, because we limit our visions and
full scope of the true person based on the 2 color assumption principle.
I’ll provide two specific
examples of “conversational ASSumptions” which can ultimately lead to ego hurt
and further distancing in any relationship if they are not diagnosed and
ameliorated in a quick amount of time.
Similar to a car that has a funny sound and or vibration . . . .if not quickly attended to, the problem can
become much worse and in some cases cause a lot of damage such as in the break
pad giving way to rotor damage or failure to change the oil leading to engine
deterioration etc.
I was at dinner the
other night with a friend. He made a
statement, which led me to believe that an assumption had been made . . .so I addressed the assumption, he
apologized and we were able to move forward.
The assumption he made was that I dialogued at the same
speed and tempo with the daughter whom I raised for 9 years as the speed and tempo
in which I dialogued with him. He
speculated that this speed and tempo might have made it difficult for her to
“track me.”
This gentleman hadn’t see the daughter and me ever interact
in person. This fact presents the idea
that much of our thoughts and awareness of “other” when outside of our
individual fields of shared vision are based on us making inferences and
designing internal cognitive schematic concepts based on what we hear the
person sharing and based on how we experience the individual. This human nature is not beneficial and
conducive to creating shared relationships of truly knowing each other.
I can only speak for
myself as I only have the familiarity of being inside my own body and
mind. That stated I do have much
professional training behind me and I for sure have more than the “Outliar”
10,000 hours of mastery expertise with individual and interpersonal REALationships. So I will proceed based on my training of
people. Caveat: Only a certain percentage of individuals and
couples of the population come into therapy, so I only have a sliver of the
population. I do also have friends,
family and acquaintances from whom to base some opinions. OK moving forward. . . .
I want think that many people have core consistent values
and beliefs but act very different around different people. I’ve heard an expression before that some
people are “chameleons” with an insinuation that this is a bad thing.
I don’t believe it to
be this simple myself. Nor do I view
varying aspects of chameleon personality to be “multiple personalities” or
tricksters in any way.
I view some people to be more complex in nature with respect
to their inner worlds. I also view being
different around different people as a sign of emotional evolution in that
certain individuals are like Darwin’s finches.
They can adapt aspects of their personalities to best fit
the environments and/or personalities with whom they are interacting at any
given time. I view this dynamism as an
asset. Being able to adjust for different psyches as long as the core values
and beliefs remain constant and true to the self helps an individual to relate
and connect to many different personality types. Even though I stated “as long as the core
values and beliefs remain constant,” this concept may be a positive thing to change
over time and let go of some rigidity.
After-all, the trees that don’t blow in the wind have a tendency to snap,
crack and fall over.
The study of personalities is so complex, yet we treat it as
a simple analysis that we can form pictures on based on a few questions in a
very short period of time. It is my
humble opinion that much of the social community is flawed, not to mention the
therapeutic and psychiatric field as well.
The more assumptions we can decrease, the less flawed our communication
will be.
Perhaps there are some people that remain very consistent in
terms of their presentation around all people.
Perhaps the personalities they connect with are also very similar in
nature. Maybe they talk about the gym,
what’s for dinner, and/or 2 aspects about their daily work. Maybe non-Darwinian personalities pick their
friends and interactions based on the personality foliage in which they are
familiar with on their internal mental island?
Nothing wrong with this perse, but when an individual is exposed to
“nuts and or barks” of other islands, their beaks simply cannot fulfill their
hunger if their beaks are made for fruits.
Therefore, when interacting with other personalities different from
self, it is important to not judge the nuts and barks minds by using a fruit
shaped beak. If this beak-food mind
analogy is used, the personality combinations will “die.”
Just as the above-mentioned friend made an assumption of me,
I too made an assumption of him. He had
been in a long-term sexless marriage.
Based on knowing this fact and based on my perception of his importance
to dialogue about establishing a physical relationship and what those
parameters would include . . . using my therapeutic training skills, it was
easy for me to hypothesize that this facet of his personality, “the need to
establish guidelines for operation in terms of relationship definition” hindered
his physical connections with people.
I surmised that his need to draw physical lines may have
taken the “soma” and spontaneity out of a possible future physical experience (before
ever getting there) by bringing people into the cognitive realm of
dialogue. Another hypothesis for his
lack of sexual relationship was that his pre-dialoguing may have felt like too
much pressure on the receiver to “enforce a sexual relationship,” like making a
list of items to get at the store….a drag and ….an anticipated chore.
Where I went wrong in my hypothesis was that like him, I too
made an assumption that he talked the same way with others as he did with
me. Using the Galapagos Islands
scenario, my friend’s personality may be very different on different personality
islands than his personality when in interaction with me. Each of us tried to pathologize and blame
(with care) the “other” for the problems in life. This blame factor is quite prevalent in all
dynamics and I’m not sure why? Not only
do we limit our hypotheses to how we perceive other interacting with us, but we
fail to take into account secondary people’s personalities and even
personalities with whom they are influenced by and interact with. Our understanding of other is way to A->
B. We are not linear people.
As mentioned above, I am not inside the bodies and minds of
others. Maybe most human beings are not
as complex as I think? Maybe most human
beings do not adjust their personality thermostats for external temperature
changes?
Maybe most people are simpletons and they act and talk and
think the exact same way as everyone they are around? Maybe their personalities wear winter parkas
even in the summer and spring. Maybe
they have no flex and cannot survive when in interaction with multiple
Darwinian personalities so they stay with the people whom they are familiar
with on their island eating fruits and not exposing themselves to nuts and
bark.
Just food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment