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

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.

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

What the hell?

Re: What the hell?

Re: What the hell?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject