andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2006-01-27 12:35 am
andrewducker) wrote2006-01-27 12:35 am
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
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
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
"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?
no subject
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...
no subject
It makes them feel happier.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
"Just empathizing" builds rapport, which gives people the sense of a partnership or community.
no subject
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.
no subject