andrewducker | Frustration part 1

Entry tags:

Frustration part 1

One of the many, many things I have done to annoy my various girlfriends is to treat their problems as things in search of a solution. They would come to me and say "X is wrong." and I would explain to them how to fix it.

Clearly, this is not what they were looking for, and they would find it very annoying that I would spend time trying to explain the patently obvious to them. What they were actually looking for was some emotional reassurance while they sorted it out themselves, which they were perfectly capable of doing so, if only someone would give them a hug, and tell them it would all be ok.

My problem is that when people come to me with their problems, I take them on as my own. If someone says "I can't do X." then I treat X as _my_ problem. I care about X. I worry about X. I desparately want to get X sorted. Knowing that X is out there, carrying on with it's wilful existence, makes me feel itchy and frankly I want it gone.

With some problems (other people's computers, for instance) this is fine - I can step in, fix the problem, receive a brief round of applause, and then relax.

Other problems, however, aren't so simple. They involve emotional situations which _aren't in my head_. They're in someone else's head, and no matter how much I want to lean over, flip open their head and fix the problem, I can't. Which means I get more and more frustrated, because I've taken on this problem and I'm not allowed to fix it. And then I make things worse by pressuring them to fix it, so that I can feel better again.

The question, then, is how to care about someone else's problem without taking ownership of it. I can do that intellectually, but if I actually _emotionally_ care about someone's problem, then I get sucked back into this horrible situation again, pressuring them to fix their problem, so that I can feel better again.

Hmmmm. Going to require more work, I think

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

See my post called "Lucky White Heather" to see what I'm trying to handle for Lady Supervixen. In my experience it's best to give a hug and say "I'm a man and so am easily confused. Do you wish practical advice as well as this hug or just the hug?" Eventually it's taken on board that this is not a joke and "Just a hug and a rant" is my signal to disengage the Super Computer Brain for a while.

"One of the many, many things I have done to annoy my various girlfriends is to treat their problems as things in search of a solution. They would come to me and say "X is wrong." and I would explain to them how to fix it."

By which you mean "explain to them how you think they should fix something which you don't understand and may not even be a real thing anyway and they weren't actually wanting help..."?

I advise being more like that handsome Patrick Bateman, or at the very least a cleric of the Tetragrammaton.

Read Deborah Tannen's stuff :-)

It's not as much "emotional reassurance" as simple intimacy -- closeness. By trying to "fix the problem," you're preventing that.

Which doesn't help.

Do you mean physically? Because *that* I can very much understand the need for. At most times, not just in times of upset. (but I'm really quite excessively physical, not everyone is like that I suppose?).

I am sure you are not saying that people get upset because they want closeness - but have to/seem to invent some other excuse/reason to try to inspire it? Are you? Why would they do that? Or maybe even they don't know and are doing it blind...

But to me, mental closeness would have to require a bit of the more problem-solving approach, as opposed to mindless reassurance - physical affection is more effective there. Isn't it?

I was thinking more emotionally. I actually have the Tannen book here, so I'll just quote from it (and she says earlier in the book, when she says "women", she is making a generalization that obviously doesn't fit all women, just a general trend).

"Trying to solve a problem or fix a trouble focuses on the message level of talk. But for most women who habitaully report problems at work or in friendships, the essage is not the main point of complaining. It's the meta message that counts: Telling about a problem is a bid for an expression of understanding ("I know how you feel") or a similar complaint ("I felt the same way when something similar happened to me"). In other words, troubles talk is intended to reinforce rapport by sending the metamessage "We're the same; you're not alone." Women are frustrated when they not only don't get this reinforcement but, quite the opposite, feel distanced by the advice, which seems to send the metamessage "We're not the same. You have the problems; I have the solutions."

In other words, say I'm telling my wife about a problem because she's been away all day and it's just small talk. The point isn't the actual conversation, the point is the fact that I'm communicating, I'm letting her be involved in my life. By relating a problem, I'm even belittling myself a bit -- losing status. If she "solves the problem," it puts us on an unequal footing, and distances herself from me, because, well, the problem is solved. This negates everything I was trying to do. If she "just emphathizes," relates how she had similar issues and how she solved it, it puts us on equal footing, lets me into her life, and in general furthers my goals for talking with her in the first place. Note -- both of these methods may fall into "solving the problem," but it's the way that it's done.

I guess I'd analyze the motivation behind the conversation -- is it because there's an actual "issue" the speaker is asking an opinion on, or is it because the speaker wants to vent, or is it because the mere act of talking and relaying his/her day is building rapport between the speaker and the other person?

*shakes head*

Oh I am aware that people are like this, I just have to keep reminding myself, because I really don't see/feel the point of all the circumlution. Seems like pointless gameplaying to me. Say what you mean and mean what you say! Leaving people to guess is already assuming that they are enough like you to be able to divine your 'real' intentions/feelings etc. by modelling it in *their* head - and this may well not be the case.

What practical good is 'just empathising'? Not being nasty, genuinely want to know. I can see it as a bit of a background thing, saying "I have been there before" may mean you can short-cut certain otherwise-necessary explanations - but that's not how you meant it, I don't think...

I really don't see/feel the point of all the circumlution.

It makes them feel happier.

yeah but how/why - that's what I don't (and perhaps just can't) see.

The majority of people (and especially women) feel better when they talk to people about their problems. They feel supported and less alone. This is hardwired in at a basic, genetic level.

I don't think I can push "why" any further than that, I'm afraid.

You should have _some_ empathy with that - after all, we talk about stuff on a semi-regular basis, and I know that you appreciate it, even though I don't really tell you anything you didn't already know.

It's being part of a community, belonging. Maslow's needs and all that. Some people value it highly, some don't.

"Just empathizing" builds rapport, which gives people the sense of a partnership or community.

In my opinion, sympathy is nice, but I suppose I'm lucky. We're pretty egalitarian in our relationship: a problem one of us has, is a problem WE have. There's no giving ground or losing status/face if one of us figures out a decent solution. What makes me happy is neutralizing said problem, so I can get back to all the stuff I enjoy doing.

I don't really see a point in just letting a situation fester. I know I'm not the textbook female, but even if I'm overwhelmed, I usually do my sulking/crying WHILE I'm trying to fix something, and I welcome help from someone who isn't condescending.

It's not circumlocution. It's not "I want to ask for hugs but I don't dare, so I'll complain about a problem instead and hope to get hugs somehow". It's "I want to talk about this problem which is dominating my mind but I know it is really a problem I and only I can solve." Of course this isn't all problems. If it's "Where can I find a good plumber?" then you're probably lookuing for solutions. But most serious problems aren't of that kind. The most common example of this is deciding whether to leave a lover. Nop one esle has your experience with your lover and no one else can really know what's right for uou - yes even if your lover is a drunk or a druggie. (Another example) is deciding when or whether to leave a job.) You can complain all you like to someone about their habits and that someone can say "have you tried asking them to put the top on the toothpaste" but usually what that kind of conversation is about is "I need to vent, be there for me, be my friend." That's empathising. It really helps. It helps you feel better, feel supported so you have the clarity and the guts to make gard decisions. As I said to Andy earlier, I personally don't feel too irritated by the suggesting-of-inappropriate-solutions-thing, and that I understood how irritated and powerles it might make HIM feel - but what 9 out f 20 women weant in that situation is not solutions but hugs (or equiv thereof). (For once) A has something dead right.

It's not *exclusively* a female thing, I don't suppose.

It seems connected to what we were talking about once about how people need the *form* of consideration and support even if they knew the substance was lacking. I just cannot understand that one at all, but I had to agree it was true.

I suppose people want you to care about *them* not see them as a series of problems, or as anything more functionally decomposed than the whole of themselves. Whereas you, and I, and many people of a similar mindset almost compulsive break things down into components and deal with them like that.

I really don't know, *I* don't think or feel that breaking something down and getting into more detail is a diminishment of anything (people, art, whatever), but rather an enhancement - but it is clear that many folks think/feel the opposite - I don't know why at all. Maybe that's it. Not eveyone is desperate to know the 'why' (and 'how') of things. greater understanding is greater enjoyment/appreciation for me...

I suppose people want you to care about *them* not see them as a series of problems, or as anything more functionally decomposed than the whole of themselves.

I don't think it's even that. I find it kind of odd that men get so confused about this, because I know men don't only talk about things they're happy with or that they need someone else to fix for them. If you get annoyed at other drivers, it doesn't help for me to say "If it upsets you like this, I think you should get rid of your car," or other ways to fix the "problem".

If I'm complaining, unless I specifically say something like "I don't know what to do about it," I'm just bitching. If someone starts trying to tell me what to do about it (especially if they're telling rather than offering suggestions) I generally feel patronised as hell. Partially because it is often a male/female thing, I think, which gives the impression that blokes think I need them to sort stuff out for me. But then, I'm stubborn, and won't let men help me build flat-pack furniture on principle, because they always think they know best :D

I rarely do 'just bitching'. Seriously, if I am annoyed about something I'd really, really, really rather it was fixed somehow - and I expect that it could be - at least theoretically, and probably by my own actions somehow - though it may not in fact be worth the cost in the end and so mayn to get done, but then again that is my decision isn't it? Under my control.

Maybe it is just my own monstrous arrogance.

Not to say that I haven't had my moments when I was younger - teens/early 20's, but I can't recall any real instances since then.

And plenty of men do 'just bitching'!

If you know you're "just bitching," though, why don't you communicate more effectively? Why not start your rambling with "I just need to vent, I'm not looking for solutions, just an ear..." I think part of the biggest problem between the sexes (other than gender role socialization) is that so many people (and it's women more than men) automagically assume that their motivations ought to be completely obvious to any half-wit they encounter. This is clearly not the case.

Unless the guy's a complete dolt, he'll likely pick up that you're just venting after a few times of being told. Getting pissed off and defensive because someone's trying to help is never going to help the situation. Even if a guy is laying out a plan of attack for your problem, 9 times out of 10, he's not trying to insult your intelligence. He's probably just trying to help, because he gives a damn.

I can identify closely with Andrew's original post. If someone brings a problem to me, I try to solve it. That's what I do. I'm a problem solver. My job is all about coming up with solutions. I work sudoku puzzles while I wait for the elevator. This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mglover/6556893/) is who I am.

Every fiber of my being is wired so that if you relate a problem, I assume that you're doing so with the expectation of assistance. When I try to solve it, I'm not trying to prove that I'm better, or smarter, or any other weirdo social manuvering because I just don't work that way. I don't do social manuvering. I solve because the problem is there.

If you present a problem and you just want commiseration, that's fine, but there's a fairly large subset of people that don't communicate that way. Presenting a problem to us isn't a prompt for empathy. If empathy is your desired response, you'll get better results by making that plain to us. You show me an equation and I solve for X because "solve for X" is implied. "Give me a hug" is never implied by an equation.

But you comply immediately when I ask for one.

This is exactly why I married you.

If you're a problem solver, why can't you solve the problem "What do women want when they tell us their problems?"

Hahaha

That problem is insoluble as currently phrased as it's based on the assumption that (A) all women want the same thing when they tell us their problems and (B) any given woman wants the same thing every single time she tells us her problems.

All I can do is respond consistently to try to achieve consistent results.

So you admit that they want different things every time, but that you respond consistently? That seems like odd behaviour.

Presumably you're making an assumption about what they want, and always applying that assumption. As that assumption seems to be the less likely one for women (not always, but it seems to be statistically so), it seems like an odd choice to make...

We have three elements here. (A) What they want, (B) what they do, and (C) how I respond. A is unknown. B is known. I generate C based on B the same way every time. If you want C to be based on A rather than B alone, B better involve articulating A.

I generate C based on B the same way every time.

And yet, according to the person who you're most commonly generating C for, you do it _wrong_ more often than not. Surely, in that case, you'd be best off changing how you generate C based on B each time, so that the odds were more in your favour?

That depends on your idea of what "wrong" is. You're proposing that I attempt to guess what the desired output might be and react accordingly. That's exactly how I don't operate. I am reliably predictable. If you tell me you want commiseration, I'll commiserate. If you tell me you have a problem, I'll try to help solve it. Knowing these things, if you want commiseration but you tell me you have a problem, which one of us has the communication issue?

If you tell me you have a problem, I'll try to help solve it.

Why?

You're _guessing_ that that's what you should do when someone does that.

Why? Refer back to my earlier "I am a problem solver" bit. To me a problem carries with it the implied question "How would you solve this?" Anyone who knows me well enough to unload personal problems to me knows this. I have a predictable response.

You seem to be suggesting that I deviate from that predictable response and play the social mindgame where you say something that's only tangentially related to what you really mean and I try to figure out what response you're attempting to elicit.

I won't. That's not a rational way to communicate. All I ask is that if you want me to do something, you tell me. Why is that so arcane?

All I ask is that if you want me to do something, you tell me.

Because they _have_ told you. You've been told that this behaviour is not what the other person wants. And yet you persist in it. I can only assume that (a)you're incapable of learning things and (b)you don't care about the feelings of the other person.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but not that much - if you've been told that when the person says "X" they are upset and looking for a response of Y to make them happy, and you persist in saying "Logic dictates that I respond with Z" then you're _deliberately_ failing to solve the problem "How do I make the woman I love happy.")

Eyeroll. You see it as my being difficult and obnoxious because I won't act in a way that I consider wacko crazy nuts. I see it as her being difficult and obnoxious because she is saying one thing while meaning something completely different and expecting me to read her mind.

Here are two solutions. One involves communicating openly and reasonably about desires and expectations. The other involves social posturing, emotional guesswork, and for someone who's not good at that sort of crap, ends in flaming wreckage.

I like the one where we just say what we want from each other. Is that really difficult?

I repeat - she _has_ said what she wants from you. She said that when she tells you she has a problem, she wants emotional support.

She doesn't say "I have a problem, please solve it for me, and give me no emotional support." She says "I have a problem." For some reason, you seem to think that these two statements are identical.

Why do you think this is?

Well, for one thing your reasoning has a flaw. To me problem solving IS emotional support. If I show you a problem and you solve it for me, that's the best emotional support you could possibly give me. My problem is gone now, thanks to you. What a great guy! All is right with the world! I sure do like having you on my side. We make a great team.

Saying "when I tell you a problem, ignore the problem, just say nice things and hug me" doesn't work for me. It's asking me to act in a way that's not just unusual, but actually repugnant.

But telling someone the answer when they already know it is just patronising. And mostly people telling you there _emotional_ problems do already know the answer, they're just not feeling calm enough to go through with it.

Bah, you're drifting the premise. Presenting a problem and the solution is not the same as presenting a problem.

I also disagree with your characterization of an attempt to help as patronizing. If a genuine desire to be of assistance is rejected as being condescending, there are other emotional issues at work here.

I also disagree with your characterization of an attempt to help as patronizing.

I'm saying it can be, if the person already knows the answer, and isn't asking for help, but for reassurance.

Which, it seems _is_ what most of them are doing.

I'm really disappointed I didn't check this thread earlier, because if I had, I would have told you to stop trying to convince my husband to fuck up our marriage because other women communicate poorly.

Yes, it used to bother me at first, because I had previously dated insensitive assholes who'd rather smile and nod and "isn't that precious?" or equally insensitive assholes who'd try and tell me exactly what I OUGHT to do.

Having someone who actually cared enough to think through the problems I was facing was relatively novel. I didn't understand the motivation at first, honestly, but Matthew is not only one of the brightest men I know, but he's also incredibly good-hearted. It didn't take long to recognize he wasn't condescending, he wasn't implying I couldn't come up with a viable solution. When hard times hit, some people hug. Some people bake casseroles and leave them on your doorstep. Others send flowers. Matthew's the kind of guy who glosses over all that extraneous stuff, but will bend over backwards to make the problem disappear.

I'm a big girl. I can solve my own problems. However, one of the million reasons why I married Matthew is because there's no one else on the planet I would rather brainstorm with. We both approach many things from wholly different perspectives, and sometimes, the best answer is somewhere in the middle. When you're as close as we are, one person's problems ARE your partner's problems, no matter how carefully you try to compartmentalize. If we didn't talk about and then suss out our issues, I don't think we'd be as strong of a couple as we are. We understand how the other thinks.

If I want a hug, if it isn't glaringly obvious, I'll ask for one, because he's not psychic. Sometimes, I want a hug while we figure out how to slay the latest dragon. Sometimes, I just want to vent. Most of the time, though, I tell Matthew things because while I know I can figure it out on my own, I like sharing my life with him. I don't see it as weakness or condescension or anything ridiculous like that: I see it as sensical, and desirable.

I would have told you to stop trying to convince my husband to fuck up our marriage because other women communicate poorly.

And I'd have asked you how I'm asking your husband to do that, because I'm not understanding how I'm doing more than asking him about why he does something.

Most of the time, though, I tell Matthew things because while I know I can figure it out on my own, I like sharing my life with him.

That's because he focuses on you, not the problem. Problem solving brings you closer together because you two are on an equal level, and you value that. Compare that to your earlier statement, where guys you dated tried to tell you how to fix your problem. Men tend to think in status; by telling you how to fix your problem, he's placing himself in a superior position.

I think it's not the "does he try to solve your problem" but "how does he try to solve your problem." You've encountered two different guys try to solve your problem in two different ways -- one you like, one you don't.

Oh, and

...told you to stop trying to convince my husband to fuck up our marriage because other women communicate poorly.

is one of the most stupid things I've read this week. It's wrong on so many levels, I'm astounded.

Who ever said I said he was doing it wrong? Certainly not me.

"It used to bother me" you said.

Which means he used to do something that bothered you. Despite knowing that it did. And what he could do to stop it.

Now, I'm not saying that this makes him a bad person (I mean, I used to do this a lot, and I'm sure I will do it in the future).

But when he's bull-headedly refusing to admit that his "problem-solving nature" isn't actually that, because if it was, he'd have solved the problem of how to deal with the woman he loves in the way she wanted to be dealt with (as opposed to you having the solve the problem of how to deal with him), then I moved to the devil's advocate position, because he seemed to be saying that you were clearly in the wrong, when I don't think you were.

If you haven't noticed, I did "solve the problem of how to deal with the woman he loves," though I reject your "in the way she wanted to be dealt with" clause. We came to an agreement on how to communicate more effectively.

Man, I sure am bull-headed.

Which is fair enough.

But it doesn't make one way 'right' and one way 'wrong'. Pretty much any communication requires compromise, and I'm glad the pair of you found one that works for you. I just objected to you saying that you were only capable of dealing with things in one way. Because I'm sure that you're smart enough and capable enough to deal with things in another way, if you wanted to.

I suppose people want you to care about *them* not see them as a series of problems, or as anything more functionally decomposed than the whole of themselves.

You're thinking about this too much.

1) They have a problem.
2) They know how to fix the problem.
3) Having the problem stresses them out/makes them feel unhappy.
4) They want a hug, and some reassurance, so that they feel better (and possibly better enough to go deal with it).
5) Telling them The Answer just makes them feel patronised (see point 2). And doesn't solve the stress/unhappiness (see point 3).

You're thinking about this too much.

:-) can never have too much thought [well unless your life/physical wellbeing depends on action within a time limit, obviously :-) ]

Well why the hell not say "gah, this is stressing me out, come here an give me a hug cos that'll make me feel better for a bit"? Or just *do* it, go hug them and say nothing.

Only fixing the problem *actually* helps. Anything else is just putting a patch on it and covering it up for a while.

1) When most people feel stressed they are unable to deal with problems that are going to cause _more_ stress. They need to calm down firt.
2) "gah, this is stressing me out, come here an give me a hug cos that'll make me feel better for a bit" - that's pretty much exactly what they do. Or has nobody ever complained at you for giving them solutions?

1) Fair enough. I have learned that the only real answer is just to get on with the solution. So it doesn't much matter how you *feel*, just get on with what needs to be done! (that's pretty much a theme with my life though).

2) On occasion, yeah. More that we get into a loud argument about the proposed solution which also relieves the stress nicely in the end 9and may actually improve your ideas on what to do.)

My husband does this exact same thing: he attacks problems with a vengeance, and so when I want to complain and get a bit of sympathy/comiseration, he'll come in with guns blazing to fix the problem.

It used to bother me, but now I understand that his burning desire to FIX things... is his way of expressing his concern/care. He loves me, and he dislikes the situation, and wants me to be happy. Therefore, he must attack the problem.

Women who are into geeky guys need to realize that many of the things that make them so attractive, also make them somewhat removed. Their huge sexy brains make them natural problemsolvers. They also live in their head, and don't often make huge sweeping displays of affection. However, when they DO express emotion, it is sincere.

That's more than one can say for so very many charming men who smile and nod vapidly at whatever a woman's saying because they think if they look sympathetic and understanding, you'll eventually shut up and sleep with them.

That's more than one can say for so very many charming men who smile and nod vapidly at whatever a woman's saying because they think if they look sympathetic and understanding, you'll eventually shut up and sleep with them.

You mean you won't?

*changes tactics*

*see icon*

*falls off chair*

Oh, and on this topic:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1329362959167995041

Well it's worked for you so far so I'd say, stick with what you know :-)

That's more than one can say for so very many charming men who smile and nod vapidly at whatever a woman's saying because they think if they look sympathetic and understanding, you'll eventually shut up and sleep with them.

*snort*

Fortunately, I am *WAY* to shallow for that one to work :-) Make my mind up on that score in about 30 seconds (and I'm secretly convinced that most people so the same - but don't admit it for whatever reasons).

I'm a geek: brains are what gets me goin'. :)

I think you will do well in negotiating the emotional minefield, Andrew, because you use your analytical mind to keep thinking, keep considering the alternatives. Because you have good faith - you genuinely want them to work - and you are highly intelligent, I don't see how you can fail to build good relationships throughout your life.

I compare this with a person who might be very similar to you in abilities and strengths, but has decided that more emotional and instictive people are inferior. What a disadvatage that person has, becuase they don't even know what they don't know (if you see what I mean).

I don't see how you can fail to build good relationships throughout your life.

*waits for one of his ex girlfriends to die laughing at that statement*

(thanks for the reassurance though)

*startles*

I have mistrusted emotions my whole life. I have been contemptuous of even my *own* instances of following them most of my life (never mind anyone else's).

I know too much biology maybe, I am too reductionist in my thinking... I think I know what they are *for*, and I don't always want to play...

Are you startled because you think I am criticising you? I don't mean to make anyone feel bad, I was just applauding Andrew's ongoing self-critical and analytical efforts. I don't think it's easy to keep saying 'I can see where I might have been going wrong'.

nah, just because your comment was so pertinent to myself. I'd probably fit the profile of

a person who might be very similar to you in abilities and strengths, but has decided that more emotional and instinctive people are inferior

pretty closely.

I don't think it's easy to keep saying 'I can see where I might have been going wrong'.

you see I can't see what else you'd do if you actually realised such a thing.

I still say throwing your hands up and saying "I'm only a man hence easily confused" is the best policy. HAvig been with the same woman for twelve years it seems to work. Or maybe she just feels pity for me. The Y-Chromosone sems to bloke telepathy.

can't see me getting away with that one...

and despite being female (and straight) I do encounter it (or variants thereof).

you fix computers! joy!

my laptop is very upset at the moment. can i bring it round sometime in exchange for fud of your choice?

Of course. I'm not promising anything, but I'll take a look.

Why bother to emotionally care about a problem?
Why not care about the person and let them care about the problem?

You got the point that a person generally wants your support & backup in order that they can go out into the big bad world and sort it out themselves.

But by sorting out problems for people you teach them they can't and they will go to others for their solucitons the next time.

Or just mutter "You think you got problems? The nightmares have started again. Think 'l just take the Black Dog for a walk."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Frustration part 1

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

What the hell?

Re: What the hell?

Re: What the hell?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject