Re: Re: [asparenting] Introductions

[Guest guest]

Re:

>

> You have the sense to know that people letting you down in this way

> are not bullies or theives,

>

What makes you think so?

> they are just examples of a less desirable

> part of human nature.

>

So are bullies, and so are thieves.

> They're not even intending to harm or mislead,

> from their perspective I suspect they're just not following through

>

What is " just " [either in the meaning " right " or in the meaning

" insignificant " ] about " not following through " ?

> and there's probably some discomfort about it that prevents them

> approaching you to let you know that. People are complicated, you

> cant change them.

>

What makes you think that people can't be changed?

At least fifty percent of what people do in this world

are things that change other people.

" You can't change people " is one of the biggest claims that was used

(in the USA) to explain why nobody should want to try to end slavery or to

make it legal for women to vote or to allow black people to sit next to

white people on a bus or train -- " because you can't force people to like

what you happen to want, so you should just accept that you'll never get it

and that you'll be very unhappy if you try. "

> You can get mad with them, you can get deeply

> personally upset ... but what's the point?

>

The point is this:

In my experience,

the only way that I can stop getting mad or upset about wrong actions

is to change into a person who can't notice that such actions are wrong --

who can't tell the difference between caring and not caring,

between keeping commitments and breaking them.

When I do that, things (and people) really suck for me -- and it also makes

things really suck for anyone I deal with.

Re:

when I decide to take charge of my hurt feelings

>

What do you mean by " take charge of ... hurt feelings " ?

What, specifically, do you do (that you label " taking charge " ) and how,

specifically, do you do it?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Re:

> >

> > You have the sense to know that people letting you down in this way

> > are not bullies or theives,

> >

> What makes you think so?

Good question, but since I can't see any reason *to* assume they are,

or any reason to assume they're deliberately out to upset you, it

generally pays to assume people are just in their own self absorbed

lives and not really thinking of harm. I've found it never pays to

start out with the assumption people mean harm. That doesn't mean let

people walk all over you as in bullying and stealing, but to go in

with a positive or at least neutral sense and see where it goes.

>

> > they are just examples of a less desirable

> > part of human nature.

> >

> So are bullies, and so are thieves.

True.

>

> > They're not even intending to harm or mislead,

> > from their perspective I suspect they're just not following through

> >

> What is " just " [either in the meaning " right " or in the meaning

> " insignificant " ] about " not following through " ?

Simply failing to, I think.

>

> > and there's probably some discomfort about it that prevents them

> > approaching you to let you know that. People are complicated, you

> > cant change them.

> >

>

> What makes you think that people can't be changed?

For the most part people can't be changed from the outside, by someone

else wanting them to be different. At least, not in ways that respect

their freedom - you can of course brainwash people, bribe them

(sometimes), blackmail them, coerce them. But if you're behaving

respectfully towards them and not abusing their rights you can't force

them to see things or do things your way, if their view of the world

is differnet.

> At least fifty percent of what people do in this world

> are things that change other people.

I don't understand your statistic. Most of the things I, for example,

do in this world, don't affect others much at all.

> " You can't change people " is one of the biggest claims that was used

> (in the USA) to explain why nobody should want to try to end slavery or to

> make it legal for women to vote or to allow black people to sit next to

> white people on a bus or train -- " because you can't force people to like

> what you happen to want, so you should just accept that you'll never get it

> and that you'll be very unhappy if you try. "

You can give information and let people work out what might be more

logical to think, and those in power can use the law to force people

who disagree to at least not act publicly on their beliefs. Most of

us though are not going to have the law enforcement agencies working

for us when we get upset at something or someone.

>

> > You can get mad with them, you can get deeply

> > personally upset ... but what's the point?

> >

>

> The point is this:

> In my experience,

> the only way that I can stop getting mad or upset about wrong actions

> is to change into a person who can't notice that such actions are wrong --

> who can't tell the difference between caring and not caring,

> between keeping commitments and breaking them.

> When I do that, things (and people) really suck for me -- and it also makes

> things really suck for anyone I deal with.

Hm, I can see that wouldn't be helpful. But there are other ways that

are more helpful. Like watching the upset you are experinecing rathe

than being full on just in it and controlled by it. One thing I do

sometimes when I feel like something outside of me is upsetting my

life is sit down and sort through what my own head is doing. I notice

I'm upset, I notice my mind wants to chunter on the upset(because

that's the natural, but unhelpful way) and so on, and I make a

decision over whether I need to act practically (and if I canbe

logical enough to do so at the time) or if I need to get on with my

life, acknowledging I feel upset about this thing, but it's not going

to be in charge of me. Of course it will come into my head time to

time, but when it does and I notice I deliberately " put it to bed " and

get on with my day. It's not squashing feelings by not dealing but

letting them do their own thing a little but not taking too much

notice.

>

> Re:

>

> when I decide to take charge of my hurt feelings

> >

>

> What do you mean by " take charge of ... hurt feelings " ?

> What, specifically, do you do (that you label " taking charge " ) and how,

> specifically, do you do it?

I decide to work on the fact that I feel upset rather than the more

dubious assumption that so-and-so is making me feel this way and

there's nothing to be done unless they change. If I'm upset, I need

to change me, and then when I'm calmer and being more raitional I can

see if there are actions in the world I need to take, or not. Often

there's not really. An irritating factor either goes away or it

doesn't, and then I decide whether i stay to be irritated and keep

dealing with my response, or find a way to be less exposed to the

iritating factor.

This may read all very abstract, and it's not helpng that my e-mail

program for some reason isn't coping well with this post and keeps

moving the cursor back to the beginning! So do feel free to ask more,

but it would help me if you do so to have shorter posts to answer, so

if there are a lot of questions then just three or four per post.

Thanks,

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

> Good question, but since I can't see any reason *to* assume they are,

> or any reason to assume they're deliberately out to upset you, ... [they

> are] not really thinking of harm ...

>

If they're not even thinking about the harm they're doing (casually

violating trust), that's even worse than if they *did* think and plan and

commit to harming others. Thoughtlessness is disgusting in a species that

survives by thinking.

Just as there are some career pickpockets who steal so frequently and

casually that they steal without thinking

(they don't even notice any more that they are doing it --

they have to exert effort in order to *not* do it),

there are casual and frequent thieves of others' time and energy and

goodwill.

Doing it thoughtlessly is no better an excuse for such thieves than for the

kind that pick pockets: or less so -- for what these thieves snatch away is

much harder to recover.

Re:

> it generally pays to assume people are just in their own self absorbed

> lives

>

Acting for yourself -- if that's what you mean by " self-absorption " ) " comes

with the package " of being alive and human -- but what they're doing is more

like trying to absorb others (doing things at another person's expense).

and not really thinking of harm. I've found it never pays to

> start out with the assumption people mean harm. ... go in

> with a positive or at least neutral sense

>

I never *start* with that assumption -- I *always* start by thinking the

best of people, by assuming they'll be honest and decent -- precisely for

the reason you mention. (Is that " positive or at least neutral " enough to be

what you're asking me to do?)

I always *start* with the assumption that they mean to act decently --

then, often, I notice that the assumption didn't fit the facts.

Re:

>I don't understand your statistic. Most of the things I, for example,

>do in this world, don't affect others much at all.

I was counting things like schools and therapy centers and hospitals and

protest-marches and governments: they're all out to change what people are

and/or what people do.

Re:

>watching the upset you are experinecing rathe

>than being full on just in it and controlled by it. ...

> sit down and sort through what my own head is doing. ...

> deliberately " put it to bed " and

> get on with my day. It's not squashing feelings by not dealing but

>letting them do their own thing a little but not taking too much

>notice. ... work on the fact that I feel upset ...

>decide whether i stay to be irritated and keep

>dealing with my response, or find a way to be less exposed to the

>iritating factor.

I've absolutely no idea about how to do any of that. It is all very

abstract, as you say. (A friend of mine has a great phrase for this sort of

thing: " floating abstractions " -- things that don't connect with anything

concrete in reality, at least not so that one can see how to connect them.)

There is exactly one concrete bit of advise in Ruth's letter --

> if there are a lot of questions then just three or four per post

-- so I'll at least do my best to follow that, because I can't see how to

apply the rest of her advice.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> I've absolutely no idea about how to do any of that. It is all very

> abstract, as you say. (A friend of mine has a great phrase for this sort of

> thing: " floating abstractions " -- things that don't connect with anything

> concrete in reality, at least not so that one can see how to connect them.)

OK, I'm sorry, I'm not sure it will be any better but here's a

different way to expain things.

Do you accept that where you have your attention affects the way you

feel? So that if for example your attention is on thinking over and

over about how someone has upset you then you feel upset in yourself

and mad with them? And then can you accept that if your attention

wasn't on those things, even though they actually happened, you

wouldn't be reinforcing the upset over and over? That by diverting

your attention you take the engery and power the of the harm done to

to you away?

I'll try an example, it may not help, but may give a basis for

directed questions rather than general misunderstanding.

This is something that happened to me this week and last week: I keep

two alpacas and every year I have to hire someone to shear them. I

got someone who agreed to come to do it and said he could definitely

do it before mid-June. Mid June came and went, it was difficult to

actually get in touch with him as his phone would go to ansaphone, but

eventually I managed and he said he'd come in the afternoon of 5th

July - Monday last week. So I waited all day, waiting is hard for me

as I can't do anything else because of anticipating interruption,

tried to phone him a few times after 6pm and eventually talked to him

around 8pm, when he said he was on his way. Then I heard nothing

until he phoned at ten to ten, siad he was three miles away but could

still come. To which I had to say there's no light in the shed. He

then rescheduled me, promising he'd be here around 8 - 9am on 15th -

yesterday. Around 11am I managed to speak to him: he said he was on

his way. It was around 2pm when he arrived. So you can imagine I was

feeling pretty messed around and fairly exhausted.

Anyway then we got down to business, got them both sheared and other

necessary bits and pieces done, and talked alpacas the whole time.

And wow, he's an amazing guy.

Of course that doesn't change that I spent 1 1/2 days waiting for him,

but I can see there'sno benefit from constantly mulling that over,

giving it attention, making it still big, when it's been and gone and

done. I've not decided yet if I'll use the same shearer next year but

if I do I'll know I'm risking a lot more waiting than he might say.

I have a choice of feeling really really upset because of the time I

lost and that he wasn't particularly apologetic about it, or being

glad it's done, I've learnt stuff, been able to discuss things alpaca

that most of the world wouldn't understand ...

It's not that I forget how messed around I felt, it's just that I'm

not giving it energy. When I think about it I think, well it's over

now. The alpacas are sheared, that's important, and even more

important I have ideas for how to work with them.

Does this help? The trouble with talking about attention and attitude

can be that the generalities are too abstract and the specifics hard

to generalise.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

>

> Do you accept that where you have your attention affects the way you

> feel?

>

>

For some things that is true -- for other things, that is untrue.

For example: when I think over and over about how someone wronged me,

naturally I don't get any angrier than I initially was -- but when I stop

allowing myself to think about that, I get much angrier.

And trying to dim my awareness of that fact/stop thinking about it/take my

mind off it (which I assume is what you mean by " not giving it energy " )

makes me *very* much angrier.

Of course, my feelings (or anybody's) aren't as important as the facts that

the feelings are about.

On another topic:

Do you sell alpaca wool/yarn? I may want to buy some someday.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Of course, my feelings (or anybody's) aren't as important as the facts that

> the feelings are about.

If something isnt happening now, but you're upset about it now, then

it isn't what's happened that's keeping you upset - that has stopped -

but the way your own mind is working. I include emotions as part of

the way the mind works, although I acknowledge there are bodily

components to emotions too.

Biochemistry tells us that the intitial bodily surge of emotion is

cleared from the bloodstream in less than two minutes. Therefore if

you still feel upset after two minutes it's what your mind is holding

on to that is creating the upset.

Facts of a situation are important for making decsions about future

situations or future interactions with particular people, that is

true.

What you do with your own attention and thoughts is important for how

your quality of life is affected.

>

> On another topic:

> Do you sell alpaca wool/yarn? I may want to buy some someday.

No, I only have two (soon I'll have three, but I'm hoping the new boy

will already be sheared). However you can buy alpaca yarn on e-bay

and many other places online. It doesn't tend to be that expensive.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

If something isnt happening now, but you're upset about it now, then

> it isn't what's happened that's keeping you upset - that has stopped -

>

But the consequences of what happened haven't stopped.

> but the way your own mind is working.

>

Should my mind stop working well enough to understand that what has happened

yesterday affects today?

>

> Biochemistry tells us that the intitial bodily surge of emotion is

> cleared from the bloodstream in less than two minutes. Therefore if

> you still feel upset after two minutes it's what your mind is holding

> on to that is creating the upset.

>

If my mind didn't grasp the past, I wouldn't have much of a present or a

future.

What you are telling me, Ruth, is *exactly* what many abusers tell their

victims, to try to " guilt " their victims into deciding that there is

something wrong with them for minding the abuse and trying to correct its

consequences

Re:

>

>

> What you do with your own attention and thoughts is important for how

> your quality of life is affected.

>

My quality of life would be *greatly* affected -- for the worse -- if I

crippled my own attention and thoughts. And *that* is what it would take --

for me -- to put my attention only on the present.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

This is turning into a fascinating dialectic... absolutism versus relativism!

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

From: handwritingrepair@...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:07:29 -0400

Subject: Re: Re: [asparenting] Introductions

Re:

If something isnt happening now, but you're upset about it now, then

> it isn't what's happened that's keeping you upset - that has stopped -

>

But the consequences of what happened haven't stopped.

> but the way your own mind is working.

>

Should my mind stop working well enough to understand that what has happened

yesterday affects today?

>

> Biochemistry tells us that the intitial bodily surge of emotion is

> cleared from the bloodstream in less than two minutes. Therefore if

> you still feel upset after two minutes it's what your mind is holding

> on to that is creating the upset.

>

If my mind didn't grasp the past, I wouldn't have much of a present or a

future.

What you are telling me, Ruth, is *exactly* what many abusers tell their

victims, to try to " guilt " their victims into deciding that there is

something wrong with them for minding the abuse and trying to correct its

consequences

Re:

>

>

> What you do with your own attention and thoughts is important for how

> your quality of life is affected.

>

My quality of life would be *greatly* affected -- for the worse -- if I

crippled my own attention and thoughts. And *that* is what it would take --

for me -- to put my attention only on the present.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I think this pretty much sums it up for my understanding too, and who should

have to self-justify any further the rightful feeling of being reasonably

annoyed by such thoughtlessness? I think, no one.

" If they're not even thinking about the harm they're doing (casually

violating trust), that's even worse than if they *did* think and plan and

commit to harming others. Thoughtlessness is disgusting in a species that

survives by thinking. "

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Kate Gladstone <handwritingrepair@...

> wrote:

>

>

> Re:

>

>

> > Good question, but since I can't see any reason *to* assume they are,

> > or any reason to assume they're deliberately out to upset you, ... [they

> > are] not really thinking of harm ...

> >

> If they're not even thinking about the harm they're doing (casually

> violating trust), that's even worse than if they *did* think and plan and

> commit to harming others. Thoughtlessness is disgusting in a species that

> survives by thinking.

>

> Just as there are some career pickpockets who steal so frequently and

> casually that they steal without thinking

> (they don't even notice any more that they are doing it --

> they have to exert effort in order to *not* do it),

> there are casual and frequent thieves of others' time and energy and

> goodwill.

> Doing it thoughtlessly is no better an excuse for such thieves than for the

> kind that pick pockets: or less so -- for what these thieves snatch away is

> much harder to recover.

>

> Re:

>

>

> > it generally pays to assume people are just in their own self absorbed

> > lives

> >

> Acting for yourself -- if that's what you mean by " self-absorption " ) " comes

> with the package " of being alive and human -- but what they're doing is

> more

> like trying to absorb others (doing things at another person's expense).

>

>

> and not really thinking of harm. I've found it never pays to

> > start out with the assumption people mean harm. ... go in

>

> > with a positive or at least neutral sense

> >

> I never *start* with that assumption -- I *always* start by thinking the

> best of people, by assuming they'll be honest and decent -- precisely for

> the reason you mention. (Is that " positive or at least neutral " enough to

> be

> what you're asking me to do?)

> I always *start* with the assumption that they mean to act decently --

> then, often, I notice that the assumption didn't fit the facts.

>

> Re:

>

>

> >I don't understand your statistic. Most of the things I, for example,

> >do in this world, don't affect others much at all.

>

> I was counting things like schools and therapy centers and hospitals and

> protest-marches and governments: they're all out to change what people are

> and/or what people do.

>

> Re:

>

>

> >watching the upset you are experinecing rathe

> >than being full on just in it and controlled by it. ...

>

> > sit down and sort through what my own head is doing. ...

>

>

> > deliberately " put it to bed " and

> > get on with my day. It's not squashing feelings by not dealing but

> >letting them do their own thing a little but not taking too much

> >notice. ... work on the fact that I feel upset ...

>

>

> >decide whether i stay to be irritated and keep

> >dealing with my response, or find a way to be less exposed to the

> >iritating factor.

>

> I've absolutely no idea about how to do any of that. It is all very

> abstract, as you say. (A friend of mine has a great phrase for this sort of

> thing: " floating abstractions " -- things that don't connect with anything

> concrete in reality, at least not so that one can see how to connect them.)

>

> There is exactly one concrete bit of advise in Ruth's letter --

>

>

> > if there are a lot of questions then just three or four per post

>

> -- so I'll at least do my best to follow that, because I can't see how to

> apply the rest of her advice.

>

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow. Excuse me, but that guy is an a$$. Forget about trying not to make

him quit. He needs to be fired. Clearly they have their own agenda, so

why have you do the workshop at all???? I have never witnessed or heard

of any such behavior in any professional setting I've worked in, altho

I know it happens. Bravo to you for pulling it off despite him. I

really don't know what I would have done. If I were tenured I would

have filed a complaint. If not, I'd probably have kept my mouth shut to

retain my position. So sorry you had to deal with that. That was beyond

immature. Keep walking with your head up.

[Guest guest]

>But the consequences of what happened haven't stopped.

When you say the consequences of what happened haven't stopped, what do you

mean? What consequences are there to you for someone missing an appointment

with you? Lost time? True you have lost some time. But in the case of a missed

appointment, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The consequences of a

missed appointment are not significant.

>Should my mind stop working well enough to understand that what has

happened

>yesterday affects today?

No, but by dwelling on and exaggerating it you are contributing to the

consequences you want to avoid, adding to wasted time that has been lost. You

are investing further time and energy lamenting the injustice of how you were

treated. This causes further grief and anger which in turn affects your ability

to make today better than yesterday.

>If my mind didn't grasp the past, I wouldn't have much of a present or a

>future.

Of course you must grasp the past. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't. But a

missed appointment is an event that should affect your future for maybe a few

days at most.

>What you are telling me, Ruth, is *exactly* what many abusers tell their

>victims, to try to " guilt " their victims into deciding that there is

>something wrong with them for minding the abuse and trying to correct

its

>consequences

The abuse analogy is wrong. Do you mean to suggest that someone not showing up

for an appointment with you is somehow like child abuse? The injustice of being

on the receiving end of someone not showing up

for an appointment is trivial compared of the abuse of a child. The two

are not comparable. They are not even close which makes your analogy pretty

useless.

Moreover, " guilting " the victims would be making the abused to feel that they

did something wrong. In the case of child abuse, the child is not responsible

and cannot be held morally culpable for the acts of the adult who has power over

the child. The abused child did nothing wrong and has nothing to feel guilty

about.

Of course, we know empirically that the child is affected deeply and does suffer

consequences long into the future from the abuse, much longer than one suffers

in the case of being stood up for an appointment. The abused child needs to

" mind " the abuse in order to correct its

consequences. It is therapeutic for the abused and indeed may help them

heal faster. To the extent the child can understand that he or she did nothing

wrong and is not guilty in any way will minimize the negative consequences he or

she will invariably face. Dealing with a missed appointment does not require

the same " minding " .

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

From: handwritingrepair@...

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:07:29 -0400

Subject: Re: Re: [asparenting] Introductions

Re:

If something isnt happening now, but you're upset about it now, then

> it isn't what's happened that's keeping you upset - that has stopped -

>

But the consequences of what happened haven't stopped.

> but the way your own mind is working.

>

Should my mind stop working well enough to understand that what has happened

yesterday affects today?

>

> Biochemistry tells us that the intitial bodily surge of emotion is

> cleared from the bloodstream in less than two minutes. Therefore if

> you still feel upset after two minutes it's what your mind is holding

> on to that is creating the upset.

>

If my mind didn't grasp the past, I wouldn't have much of a present or a

future.

What you are telling me, Ruth, is *exactly* what many abusers tell their

victims, to try to " guilt " their victims into deciding that there is

something wrong with them for minding the abuse and trying to correct its

consequences

Re:

>

>

> What you do with your own attention and thoughts is important for how

> your quality of life is affected.

>

My quality of life would be *greatly* affected -- for the worse -- if I

crippled my own attention and thoughts. And *that* is what it would take --

for me -- to put my attention only on the present.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Re:

> When you say the consequences of what happened haven't stopped, >what do you

mean?  What consequences are there to you for >someone missing an appointment

with you? Lost time?

The person who scheduled and broke six appointments

told other people how " ineffective " I'd been.

That has consequences greater than mere lost time.

What about people who pay you with checks that bounce?

That also has consequences lasting longer than two minutes.

What about people who accompany their kids into my office, and

disrupt the lesson? (One mom handed her son his GameBoy whenever he

asked for it while writing. She would reach over me, put the GameBoy

onto his paper -- he would pick it up and start playing, refusing to

put it down, and she would make some comment that he needed have this

be counted as good handwriting because it would give him lots of

self-esteem. The lessons he was learning from that would last longer

than two minutes -- and longer than any lesson I was allowed to teach

him)

Re:

> No, but by dwelling on and exaggerating it you are contributing to  the

consequences you want to avoid, adding to wasted time that has been lost.  You

are investing further time and energy lamenting the injustice of how you were

treated.  This causes further grief and anger which in turn affects your ability

to make today better than yesterday.

I find instead that, when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an

injustice, I stop considering it unjust (and I stop wanting to change

things to make them just -- to " make today better than yesterday, " as

you said.) And -- when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an injustice

-- that vastly increases my grief and anger. (When I remain aware of,

and reacting to, the situation and its consequences -- the wrong

treatment, or whatever -- my grief and anger begin to decrease. Would

you advise against that, too?)

> Of course you must grasp the past.  I'm not suggesting you shouldn't.  But a

>missed appointment is an event that should affect your future for maybe a few

>days at most.

Why? How did you become the arbiter of what " should " affect anyone

else's future?

>

> The abuse analogy is wrong.  Do you mean to suggest that someone not showing

up for an appointment with you is somehow like child abuse?

No -- someone repeatedly making appointments,

breaking them for no reason but her feelings of the moment,

and then telling me and others that this means I'm ineffective

is *grownup* abuse.

Re:

> Moreover, " guilting " the victims would be making the abused to feel >that they

did something wrong.

What about someone trying to make me feel that I did something wrong

by caring about the situation? (and what about the situation itself:

someone trying to make me feel that I'd done something wrong by

failing to help a client I was never permitted to see?)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

>The person who scheduled and broke six appointments

>told other people how " ineffective " I'd been.

>That has consequences greater than mere lost time.

Maybe you can sue if you've been slandered. Maybe you can prove you lost

business as a result of the person's calumny.

>What about people who pay you with checks that bounce?

>That also has consequences lasting longer than two minutes.

Again you can seek legal restitution here if it's worth it to you.

>What about people who accompany their kids into my office, and

>disrupt the lesson? (One mom handed her son his GameBoy whenever he

>asked for it while writing. She would reach over me, put the GameBoy

>onto his paper -- he would pick it up and start playing, refusing to

>put it down, and she would make some comment that he needed have this

>be counted as good handwriting because it would give him lots of

>self-esteem. The lessons he was learning from that would last longer

>than two minutes -- and longer than any lesson I was allowed to teach

>him)

What can I say? It's rude. That must have been very frustrating for you.

>I find instead that, when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an

>injustice, I stop considering it unjust (and I stop wanting to change

>things to make them just -- to " make today better than yesterday, " as

>you said.) And -- when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an injustice

>-- that vastly increases my grief and anger. (When I remain aware of,

>and reacting to, the situation and its consequences -- the wrong

>treatment, or whatever -- my grief and anger begin to decrease. Would

>you advise against that, too?)

Your sense of fairness and justice are great strengths of yours. My only

suggestion is that we all have to " pick our battles " . We can't possibly fight

all injustices. We don't have enough time or energy.

>Why? How did you become the arbiter of what " should " affect anyone

>else's future?

I am not anyone's arbiter. It's just my opinion.

>No -- someone repeatedly making appointments,

>breaking them for no reason but her feelings of the moment,

>and then telling me and others that this means I'm ineffective

>is *grownup* abuse.

I agree she behaved badly. You deserve better.

>What about someone trying to make me feel that I did something wrong

>by caring about the situation? (and what about the situation itself:

>someone trying to make me feel that I'd done something wrong by

>failing to help a client I was never permitted to see?)

Ditto from above.

[Guest guest]

> For example: when I think over and over about how someone wronged me,

> naturally I don't get any angrier than I initially was -- but when I stop

> allowing myself to think about that, I get much angrier.

> And trying to dim my awareness of that fact/stop thinking about it/take my

> mind off it (which I assume is what you mean by " not giving it energy " )

> makes me *very* much angrier.

I've been thinking about this because it's both unusual and

counter-intuitive. Note I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm not in your

head.

A lot of people intuitively - or naturally, if you prefer - distract

themselves from their anger and upset and then feel better. For

example people go for a walk to cool off, enagae in hard exercise,

watch a funny film, engage in an absorbing hobby and so on. Then when

they feel better - less overwhelmed by the upset - they come back to

the issue with a " cooler head " .

With you, and this is pure speculation and not meant to upset, it

looks like there may be an unwillingness to disengage with the anger,

perhaps a feeling of having a right to be upset and a need for

external solutions and justice. Again note I'm not saying external

solutions/justice are wrong and not to be sought, the issue is how you

feel and your quality of life in the meantime, and especially if you

don't get your justice or the situation is unchangeable.

Anyway, as I said earlier, one can't change other people, only offer

alternative information, and that's what I've done. Since it seems to

be upsetting for you then it's not productive and I'll stop.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

I find this happens when I am assigned to tutor a student. I've also been

guilty of missing appts., myself. I rely heavily on my cell phone alarm to

remind me what I need to do. Even at that, if I set it too early, I can

still forget, it's that bad. I've learned with tutoring people have a hard time

changing their routine, adding a new thing into their life. Whenever it's

a new season, and my kids start a new sport, it's very difficult for me to

transition into a new daily routine.

That being said, do you call to remind your clients of their appt? That

might help. Try with different timing. The night before, 2 nights before, or

both, to help people transition.

[Guest guest]

I've found one of the things that makes the intensity of the injustice of

personally targeted " thoughtlessness " last longer is the

unacknowledged* *justifiable-without-explanation-necessary

unhappiness at being hurt; it adds salt to the wound. I do understand this,

and what are the best ways you've come to deal with this whole combined

feeling while also still being in the hurt of what first happened?

Thanks,

Jeanie

> No, but by dwelling on and exaggerating it you are contributing to the

consequences you want to avoid, adding to wasted time that has been lost.

You are investing further time and energy lamenting the injustice of how

you were treated. This causes further grief and anger which in turn affects

your ability to make today better than yesterday.

I find instead that, when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an

injustice, I stop considering it unjust (and I stop wanting to change

things to make them just -- to " make today better than yesterday, " as

you said.) And -- when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an injustice

-- that vastly increases my grief and anger. (When I remain aware of,

and reacting to, the situation and its consequences -- the wrong

treatment, or whatever -- my grief and anger begin to decrease. Would

you advise against that, too?)

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Kate Gladstone <

handwritingrepair@...> wrote:

> Re:

> > When you say the consequences of what happened haven't stopped, >what do

> you mean? What consequences are there to you for >someone missing an

> appointment with you? Lost time?

>

> The person who scheduled and broke six appointments

> told other people how " ineffective " I'd been.

> That has consequences greater than mere lost time.

>

> What about people who pay you with checks that bounce?

> That also has consequences lasting longer than two minutes.

>

> What about people who accompany their kids into my office, and

> disrupt the lesson? (One mom handed her son his GameBoy whenever he

> asked for it while writing. She would reach over me, put the GameBoy

> onto his paper -- he would pick it up and start playing, refusing to

> put it down, and she would make some comment that he needed have this

> be counted as good handwriting because it would give him lots of

> self-esteem. The lessons he was learning from that would last longer

> than two minutes -- and longer than any lesson I was allowed to teach

> him)

>

> Re:

>

> > No, but by dwelling on and exaggerating it you are contributing to the

> consequences you want to avoid, adding to wasted time that has been lost.

> You are investing further time and energy lamenting the injustice of how

> you were treated. This causes further grief and anger which in turn affects

> your ability to make today better than yesterday.

>

> I find instead that, when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an

> injustice, I stop considering it unjust (and I stop wanting to change

> things to make them just -- to " make today better than yesterday, " as

> you said.) And -- when I stop my awareness of/reaction to an injustice

> -- that vastly increases my grief and anger. (When I remain aware of,

> and reacting to, the situation and its consequences -- the wrong

> treatment, or whatever -- my grief and anger begin to decrease. Would

> you advise against that, too?)

>

>

> > Of course you must grasp the past. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't.

> But a >missed appointment is an event that should affect your future for

> maybe a few >days at most.

>

> Why? How did you become the arbiter of what " should " affect anyone

> else's future?

>

> > The abuse analogy is wrong. Do you mean to suggest that someone not

> showing up for an appointment with you is somehow like child abuse?

>

> No -- someone repeatedly making appointments,

> breaking them for no reason but her feelings of the moment,

> and then telling me and others that this means I'm ineffective

> is *grownup* abuse.

>

> Re:

>

> > Moreover, " guilting " the victims would be making the abused to feel >that

> they did something wrong.

>

> What about someone trying to make me feel that I did something wrong

> by caring about the situation? (and what about the situation itself:

> someone trying to make me feel that I'd done something wrong by

> failing to help a client I was never permitted to see?)

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> When you say the consequences of what happened haven't stopped, what do

> you mean? What consequences are there to you for someone missing an

> appointment with you? Lost time? True you have lost some time. But in the

> case of a missed appointment, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

> The consequences of a missed appointment are not significant.

**Yes they are! How about missed income, because people didn't cancel 24+

hrs prior, so the time slot could've been filled with another appt?

> No, but by dwelling on and exaggerating it you are contributing to the

> consequences you want to avoid, adding to wasted time that has been lost.

> You are investing further time and energy lamenting the injustice of how

> you were treated. This causes further grief and anger which in turn

> affects your ability to make today better than yesterday.

**Maybe she's trying to figure out why so many people do this and trying to

think of ways to avoid being taken advantage of in the future. This would

irritate me, too, esp if it happens a lot.

> The abuse analogy is wrong. Do you mean to suggest that someone not

> showing up for an appointment with you is somehow like child abuse? The

> injustice of being on the receiving end of someone not showing up

> for an appointment is trivial compared of the abuse of a child. The two

> are not comparable. They are not even close which makes your analogy

> pretty useless.

**I agree that this analogy doesn't work, but missed appointments = lost

money for her. Don't you understand this?

>

> Moreover, " guilting " the victims would be making the abused to feel that

> they did something wrong. In the case of child abuse, the child is not

> responsible and cannot be held morally culpable for the acts of the adult

> who has power over the child. The abused child did nothing wrong and has

> nothing to feel guilty about.

**Agreed!

>

> Of course, we know empirically that the child is affected deeply and does

> suffer consequences long into the future from the abuse, much longer than

> one suffers in the case of being stood up for an appointment.

**True, but what if you're stood up time and again?

D.

[Guest guest]

Re:

> How about missed income, because people didn't cancel 24+

> hrs prior, so the time slot could've been filled with another appt?

>

Yes -- and also the time and effort lost in preparing an individualized

session for a client who never arrives. (Depending on individual needs --

and things like the client's age, too -- preparing and setting up for a

45-to-60-minute individual session can take anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes.)

**Maybe she's trying to figure out why so many people do this and trying to

> think of ways to avoid being taken advantage of in the future. ... what if

> you're stood up time and again?

>

>

Finally, someone understands!

Thank you, Delia!

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Finally, someone understands!

People not agreeing with you may also be understanding, just from

different viewpoints. If you're going to present an issue to a lot of

different people you should expect a lot of different views. And

often it's useful to not only take into account the ones you agree

with - the ones that jolt your sense of how the world is can sometimes

be the most useful in the long run, even though the ones that agree

with you are most comforting in the immediacy.

I'm often amazed how on forums someone will say something I just

hadn't thought of, or explain a pov I never " got " before.

Love it :-)

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

Re:

> That being said, do you call to remind your clients of their appt? That

> might help. Try with different timing. The night before, 2 nights before,

> or

> both, to help people transition.

>

Yes, I do. The ones who don't show up *always* say (when I call) that this

time they'll be there.

I used to call twice (two nights before, and then one night before), but

people considered this " nagging. "

Then I tried calling one night before, but people often said this didn't

give them enough time to re-schedule stuff that they'd scheduled into their

appointment-slot because of forgetting that they had the appointment.

So now I just call two nights before, and ask the person to mark his/her

calendar, and give him/her some time to do so before I hang up. It still

doesn't help much -- a lot of people regard even this as " nagging " or

" pressure " (especially if they have missed other appointments).

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Re:

> For example, make policies up front that instruction time is to be devoted

> to instruction only. That missed appointments must be paid for in full.

> Failure to cooperate with instruction (as with the clien'ts mother giving

> him a gameboy and saying it counted as instruction) could end in an early

> termination of the appointment (after a fixed number of warnings given). ...

> a bounced check means that the person must from now on pay in cash....

> [etc.]

>

I have every one of those policies up front, and have had so for the past

several years: devising them and enforcing them as a result of experiences

like those I've described.

It still hasn't helped as much as I need to get it helping: it gets me

called " a tyrant who only wants to be a cop, not to teach " (I'm quoting the

" GameBoy Mom " here).

And when people hear up front that I've a policy that I may sue if slandered

-- well, that stopped any malicious gossip but it also started people

deciding that there must be something wrong with me if I needed to have such

a policy and spell it right out " up front. " (People aren't used to tutors

telling them up front that there may be penalties for slander ... )

However, I'll look for " Teach like a Champion " -- thanks for recommending

it.

Re:

> For example if a student (or staff member) is disrupting a group

presentation by playing with >the light switch, instead of scowling " Stop

that! " say in a neutral voice, " I need you to stop >playing with the light

switch so that we can all pay attention. " Then when they stop >immediately

say " thank you " This is a technique that I learned from that book.

That's what I do (I learned that from my mom who used to teach English) --

but it doesn't always work for me as well as it worked for her. What happens

when the staffer (or whoever) *doesn't* stop flicking the switch when I ask?

And what happens when some other staffer then says that they need me not to

ask him to stop flicking it?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Re:

> People not agreeing with you may also be understanding, just from

> different viewpoints.

>

If they understood those concerns, their responses gave me no sign of that.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Re:

> > People not agreeing with you may also be understanding, just from

> > different viewpoints.

> >

>

> If they understood those concerns, their responses gave me no sign of that.

They saw different concerns perhaps that to them had different levels

of priority than they did to you? This could be helpful.

I urge you not to reject differing viewpoints but to examine them, by

yourself, for helpful ideas. I'm not just saying this to get you to

look at mine, I think you have a lot of very varied advice and ideas

given. It would be a shame to outright reject that which doesn't fit

a particular worldview.

If you're only looking for certain kinds of advice on certain aspects

then it would help the rest of us if you said so, so we don't waste

our time or upset you.

Ruth

--

" Environmental problems are difficult to solve because Earth is a

" public good " .  Even though we would all be better off if everyone

reduced their environmental impact, it is not in anyone's individual

interest to do so.  This leads to the famous " tragedy of the commons " ,

in which public resources are overexploited and everyone suffers. "

New Scientist opinion article

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Gladstone

**Maybe she's trying to figure out why so many people do this and trying to

> think of ways to avoid being taken advantage of in the future. ... what if

> you're stood up time and again?

>

>

Finally, someone understands!

Thank you, Delia!

***Of course I do! How could anybody not understand how frustrating

this is? I'd make a rule that they can cancel two, maybe three times, after

that they get dropped as (potential) clients.

D.

[Guest guest]

Re:

...

>

>

> For example, if someone cancels an appointment without a 24 hour notice

> they have to pay for the appointment anyway. And they should be informed in

> writing of this at the beginning of the association. ... Then when they

> transgress, follow through with the consequences.

>

That's what I do -- they still " test boundaries " more than I like.

Some of them do the same with other tutors (like sports coaches or music

teachers) -- but a lot of them do it with just me (and these folks don't

seem able to explain why they admit they'd " blow off " me but not " blow off "

the same kid's piano teacher or tennis coach).

Kate Gladstone