This is a personal study on codependence, addictive, behavior and human nature in general. Please follow me and feel free to share your experiences and ideas. Please feel free to visit my sponsors if you like what I write. While I'm not in it for the money, it would be nice one day to transition to full-time writing.
In discussing relationships with friends, I have used and heard the term settling to describe prior relationships. I've always felt with the concept of 'settling' that I needed to make a disclaimer. Namely, that one party is not better than the other person. In any case, that word can have such an insulting connotation. In a separate discussion one time, a friend was telling me his own relationship issues and the term "drifting apart" came to mind. It occurred to me that that is such a vague term. The upshot of those two points is that I felt a blog post coming on. This is a post which I attempt to define/divine the meaning of terms to describe relationships--including small 'r' ones. These definitions are not your Webster Dictionary clinical type definitions, but what I consider real life definitions. Anyway, here are a list of 10 terms which I am attempting to divine. Each person's list may vary.
Settling:Accepting too much of mismatch. Could be a weak connection, too few interests, being at different stages in life/recovery, etc. Really, it applies to both partners. They are accepting/holding onto a situation that is not right for them. Doesn't mean specifically that either one is 'better' than the other, just they are at different places.
Connection: A deep sense of being on the same page, being able to finish each other's thoughts and sentences. Sharing or having compatible goals. In a phrase, being in-tune or in-touch with the other.
Drifting apart: Gradually losing that sense of connection.
Codependent: Too reliant on another person for your sense of contentment. This is sometimes very subtle to detect. Obviously in relationships, especially marriage ones with kids, each partner will to an extent rely on the other. Similarly, in relationships, if it is a healthy one, each partner will bring out (vs. create) happiness or contentment in the other. The question is really can you be relatively happy either way. That is to say, you don't need the relationship to 'fix' yourself.
I'm Fine: It means I'm not fine, but I'm just saying it for one or both of two reasons. 1) Because I don't think you'll understand me anyway. 2) I'm hoping you'll get that I'm not really fine and figure it out without me having to explain it. Distant: Having drifted apart, connection being strained. Close: Having a deep connection. Good Listener: Someone who is more interested in paying attention to you and not trying to prove that they are listening or humoring you while they wait to gain the floor for their words. Safe: Someone who is not likely to hurt you or break your heart. Safe often is mistaken for 'boring'. It can be, but doesn't have to be. It just means the person is a loyal friend who never have to worry. Needy: Also known as too codependent. Can be a term used by one partner who is distant to the other partner. Using this term allows the distant partner to push back against the other person's relationship needs. It can truly apply, but it also can be abused. -- I could go on forever, but I think 10 is a nice round number. In any case, feel free to give your own meanings to these and other relationship terms. Enjoy.
As we go through life, it seems like we hit change points from time to time--residences, professions, relationships-family and friends, losses, etc. I felt a weird disconnect last year (2014) when late one Sunday night my mom passed away with almost no notice. About a week later I was back at work trying to pretend as if nothing had changed and going about doing my job. It's like I had to bury the hurt, bury the pain, bury the shock. I was at a concert last night (August 2015) and Collective Soul was the opening band. As music often does, it transported me back in time. I remembered a little bit about the last time I saw them. It seemed like a long time ago, yet I remember distinctly enjoying my birthday that year seeing them at the Pageant. Anyway, that memory was buried deep in the past. It got me to thinking about burying things. So, exactly what is burying. What are the pros and cons of it and how does it differ from setting aside and denying? We can't always deal directly in the present with people/relationships and problems. Sometimes, we have to take another approach to dealing with problems for our mental well-being. First, I wish to cover burying. Burying
It can be a very healthy process. If we have properly mourned or come to terms with something, it makes no sense to ever let it see the light of day. In other words, laying it to rest.
A grudge or hard feelings with a family member or friend, if reasonably resolved can and should be forgotten. Aka burying the hatchet.
If we have truly fully processed a hurt, it sometimes is time to let it drift off into nothingness. Not to be forgotten, but not to be thought about so much. Except of course, if it can be used instructionally with others.
It can be a very necessary process.
Clearly in the case of a literal physical burial, it is a necessary, but sad process in dealing with the passing of a loved one.
Sometimes a relationship is so hopelessly broken that you just have to sweep up its remains and just bury them rather than trying to hold on.
It can be an unhealthy way of dealing
Sometimes, we haven't dealt with demons, skeletons or hurts and they are just too painful to deal with. The easy answer is to 'soldier on', 'get over it', and just attempt to bury what hurts.
As we know, if we don't learn from the past, we tend to repeat it. If we don't learn from our mistakes or misjudgments, we can easily fail to recognize a similar scenario when it arises.
Just like in a horror movie with a person who is wrongly killed, our demons or skeletons can come back to haunt us.
It can take the literal form of someone or some circumstance coming back into our life which disrupts our current situation.
It can take the form of a secondary issue. If not properly resolved that can metastasize into a larger problem. We may think we are burying a hurt, but instead we are planting the seed for another larger problem such as drinking. A problem which can completely absorb us and destroy us.
Next, I will cover setting aside
Setting aside
It can be a healthy way to deal with an issue.
Sometimes we aren't finished processing issues or problems. Sometimes we don't have the strength to deal with the heavy lifting involved. So, we process as much as we can and then set aside the issue to pick up at a later point.
When we come back to the issue at a later point, we may be able to come back at it with a calmer mind and a fresher perspective.
It can be an unhealthy way of dealing with something that needs to be dealt with now.
For example, if we are having relationship issues that are getting worse or leading to more resentment, delaying dealing with them will only make dealing with them worse later.
Another example: if we know someone needs an intervention, putting it off until later may make the intervention more painful for everyone and won't really keep us at ease in the meantime. We may be able to avoid the problem for a time, but it won't get any better and risks worsening.
We don't always have the luxury of setting aside a problem.
For example, when a loved one dies & we are the responsible party, we can't just ignore dealing with their passing while we collect our grief. We have to soldier on through it until we have a chance to exhale.
If a problem is severe, we risk it blowing up in our face if we ignore it.
For example, if we ignore necessary engine work on our car long enough, we might wake up one day and wonder why our engine has permanently failed.
Another example: if we push off cutting expenses too long, we might end up having to declare bankruptcy and ruining our credit in the process.
Finally, I'll considering denying.
Denying
Denying a problem, at least in the short term, might be the only way we can mentally deal with it. That is it effectively is a shock based response.
If we had someone close to us die, the pain that they we feel might be too intense to deal with at the present time. We may need to tell ourselves that we are fine to get by in the short term.
Denial can buy us time to come to terms with the issue or loss.
Longer term, denial is a horrible way of coping or dealing with a problem.
It can frustrate those around us.
We risk the problem getting out of control if we deny it long enough.
It can also be a response based on not wanting to deal with a problem.
If we deny a problem exists why then there will be no need to deal with it.
For example, if we have a family history of heart problems and we show symptoms of heart problems, we can fool ourselves into believing we definitely don't have a problem, especially if we don't get it looked at.
If we don't have a doctor diagnose a health issue, then we can blissfully pretend that it doesn't exist as it hasn't been 'officially' diagnosed.
That is at least until the problem becomes so huge or so in our face we can't avoid it anymore.
A family members who has given indications of suicidal thinking may one day force us to pull away the denial after they make an attempt on their own life.
Kind of hard to avoid facing a problem when it has just blown up in our face.
I guess the takeaway from this blog for me is this. There is a time to deal with problems, but there is also a time bury a problem: when it is necessary and/or after it has been dealt with effectively. However, there is a time to set aside problems or even to deny them. It's important not to set aside or deny a problem for too long, but it is just as important not to keep on 'dealing' with a problem indefinitely. That is long after it has come time to bury that problem. Part of maturing is knowing when to deal, not to deal and when it is finally time to bury a problem. Getting the timing down of how and when to effectively deal with problems is a key to living in the moment and living in serenity. I think the bible effectively talks about this in Ecclesiastics.
Whether it is interviewing for a dream job, competing for the big prize or in the big race/event, starting out in new city, getting the courage to ask out someone who intrigues you or any other such circumstance, each has at least one aspect in common. Typically each of these involves some degree of uncertainty or fear. Each involves stepping outside our comfort zone. Each involves risking 'failure' or allowing vulnerability of a sort and the shame or discomfort that comes along with it. We could freeze up, we could fail or perform miserably, we fall on our face, we could face an uncomfortable or awkward rejection, etc. In short, we could feel a portion or a full measure of shame, discomfort or humiliation when we try. Just like there are people who seem to enjoy or thrive on pain, I suppose there are people who ride the humiliation train back to the station to 'feel alive'. However, most people I know don't enjoy those feelings. I will follow-up this blog with another one called, "It's true: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." as I realized there really is a certain freedom when you hit rock bottom. But, for the moment, I will focus on when we still have something to lose and how to deal with the fear. I've learned over the years multiple strategies in dealing with it, some better than others.
Self-talk
Tell yourself that more often than not, the worse case scenario is just that. That is to say, highly unlikely to happen.
When I tandem sky-dived, I told myself that the instructor wanted to go back home that day too. That is to say, I wasn't the first anxious person to sky-dive and that he knew what he was doing and was going to do his best to minimize any risk I could pose.
I have a bit of fear of drowning. When I snorkeled for the first time in the open water away from the boat, I was nervous. However, I realized it wasn't as if I struggled too much that the crew would just let me drown.
Talking through and eliminating the unrealistic.
When I lose something around the house or in my car, I remind myself that it didn't just fly out the window when I was driving. In other words, it's not gone forever, but just lost.
That even if you think an interview goes poorly, interviewers normally don't ridicule you to your face, take you out back and shoot you or call your current boss and tell him to fire you for being an unmitigated interview disaster.
Tell yourself that people don't die of humiliation and that a lot of time the humiliation you feel is emanating from you than being projected at you.
Studying (or preparing)
The more you prepare for a big step, big move or a big competition, the less you leave up to chance. That is the less uncertainty you have.
If you do your research about a company and the role or position you are interviewing for, you go in less likely to get surprised during the interview.
If you research the different aspects of a city that you are moving to, you have an better idea what to expect when you actually get there.
If you study what is important to the object of your interest and focus on developing a rapport with her, you can better acclimate her to you. That is to say subconsciously she could picture herself with you.
The more you realistic your preparation, the more you can you see yourself with a positive outcome.
For example, when racing, I did both speed training and distance training. Short interval speed training allowed myself to acclimate (and picture) running faster than usual. Distance training made me confident that I could readily run the race distance.
Traveling to and around and staying in a new city before the big move, can help you to picture the daily routine around of it--where to shop, what roads to take, etc.
Self-denial
This is where in your mind, you minimize the actual risk.
Sometimes, if we accepted what the actual risk was, it would keep us from doing what we need to. Self-deception can move us to a point in which we engage in 'fearful' behavior by pretending there is no reason to be concerned.
Ignorance may not be bliss, but in the right circumstance it can be freeing. If you don't realize the risk until the fact, then you haven't given yourself a chance to worry about it.
Slight 'recklessness'
Sometimes there is a definitive fear or risk no matter how much you have prepared, tried to reason your way out of the fear or deny the risk. You just have to make a decision to step out and jump off the diving board, hoping that there is water below.
Sometimes you have to jump out of that plane with a parachute, imaging that the chute WILL open just like it always has done without fail, time and time previously.
Straitjacket
Sometimes boxing yourself into a necessary choice is a painful but effective way of dealing.
If the choices that you leave yourself are worse, then you leave yourself 'no choice' but to take the chance.
When I sky-dived, I let everyone that mattered to me know that I was going to. I took someone with me who had done it before and was likely to hold my feet to the fire and think less of me if I chickened. I drove to a location a few hours out, thereby making a return trip back home too humiliating if I had 'chickened out'. In short, the cost in shame, humiliation and money was too much for me to stomach. So, I took the 'easy' way out and did the jump.
--
I guess my takeaway from this blog post is that sometimes you just have to find a way to push through the fear. Sometimes you can talk yourself through it, sometimes you can fool your way through it, sometimes prepare your way through it, sometimes you can just decide to do it anyway and some times you can 'shame' yourself through it. But, ultimately in life sometimes we just have to find a way to push past the fear and let go.
One time, I was talking to my daughter one time about the concept of 'bad words'. I said certain words are always inappropriate like curse words (and sort of implied an example). I said other words, are somewhat inappropriate, but not curse words such as stupid. I then said some words on the other hand, it really depends. I used the example of fat. If call or refer to a person as fat, that is a bad or rude word. If you are using fat (as in wide) to describe a street or space, then it is just a description. Anyway, this is the second in set of blogs regarding motivations and biases. The first entry was Motivated to write thoughts on motivations. The terms bias and discrimination in and of themselves are not bad words. When we think of them, we tend to attach to them a negative connotation or context. But, let's take each word separate. You can have a bias in favor of vanilla or chocolate ice cream without being considered a jerk or you can have a bias towards your child and be considered reasonable in many cases. Similarly, if you discriminatory tastes that can mean you have the ability to tell and appreciate the difference between two wines. Also, if you are showing discrimination, you might be talking about being able to discern the difference between right and wrong. Anyway, I have thought that sometimes people are trying so hard not to appear biased or discriminatory that it gets to a point of ridiculousness. Meaning their actions almost seem based on the notion that they are trying to convince themselves that they aren't--discriminatory--or don't have what they actually have--biases. I think this feed what we call political correctness. Most people want to appear reasonable and fair-minded and in most cases people--even those of different of different views--are, but that doesn't mean ignoring reality about ourselves. -- Let's look at bias or discrimination and face certain realities
We tend to favor our subgroups
Family
Friends or clique
Teams or those who have something in common with.
City, state or national group
Ethnic, cultural, or religious.
In God's eyes we are all considered equal, but that doesn't mean that all groups or subgroups are the same.
Until people have shown otherwise, I have always felt they should be respected regardless of their differences, provided the respect is reciprocated. To wit, I went to Meramac Caverns with my stepson's cub scout troop and ran into a guy from Kenya. We got to striking up a conversation and though in many ways we were very different, we seemed to have a genuine respect for each other and could have talked all day.
If a subgroup does not enforce norms effectively, its foolhardy to ignore that.
Groups are still composed of people and therefore can have problems. Sometimes problems are specific to a group and sometimes problems cross groups.
For example, certain ethnics groups show higher incidence of health issues compared to others.
The drawbacks to children being raised in a one parent household is something that is a problem across many groups.
When we are unfamiliar with a group or just are lazy, it is much easier to assign characteristics to the group or 'stereotype' them.
Individuals within the group may not necessarily fit the characteristics (properly or improperly) assigned to the larger group.
There may be a higher rate of crime in a certain communities, but that doesn't mean that its okay to assume someone from the community is probably a criminal.
Certain communities may be known for placing a stronger emphasis on education, but that doesn't mean you should assume that a member of that community inherently will be more studious than others who are not from that community.
Certain elements of a stereotype may have some truth to them, but that doesn't make the whole stereotype valid.
For example, just because a group, community or regions tends to have higher rates of poverty doesn't automatically mean that higher rates of crime have to follow.
Biases can protect us, but they can also hinder us.
For example if an area is considered to be dangerous walking alone in after dark, we'd be foolish to walk alone there after dark (and our bias would serve to protect).
On the other hand, if we hear a city like Chicago is unsafe when in reality only certain parts of it are unsafe, we might decide to avoid vacationing there and therefore might miss out on the rich experiences of Chicago. We'd miss out on it because we let our bias dictate our behavior.
--
Unfortunately, our country has been governed by large swings in direction. When we error in a certain direction, it is not uncommon for us to try to correct the error by going too much in another or the other direction. Another way of saying it is that often we think in terms of black and white (no pun intended), when we should think in shades of grey. Let's face it, in this country, racial and other discrimination have been an issue. I don't believe the solution is to change the objects of discrimination, but instead to change the culture where discrimination. That being said, sometimes discrimination IS necessary. For example, when a crime is committed and witnessed to be done by a young person, you typical don't look among groups of older people to find the suspect. In other words, you discriminate in your search.
I guess my takeaways are this:
We all have biases, whether we recognize it or not. It is best to own them so that we can determine if they are something that really need to work on them or if they are reasonable.
Biases are not always a bad thing per se, but it is to what it is applied to that can make it unacceptable or undesirable.
Biases can from time to time protect us. but they can hinder us as well.
We have to recognize that in God's sees us as equals, but that doesn't mean we are the same.
Hopefully, this blog post makes sense to people and/or at least gets people thinking. But, those are some of my biases about biases.
I am political by nature, but I normally attempt to refrain from politics in my blogs. To me, when you are trying to reach out and share what you think are helpful 'self-help', 'introspections', 'observations', etc., the worse thing you can do is antagonize those who might be in your audience. In that vein, I've noticed a number of years ago that people will double down on views that are at best dubious if they perceive you are attacking them personally vs. sharing a different perspective. I mention all this because I think this blog & the follow-up one because it includes the idea of political correctness. This blog post will be the first of two, the second one will be about biases called: Biased about biases.
All that aside, I have pondered motivations. What motivates us to do or not things and/or exhibit certain behaviors? From my perspective, it usually falls in one of these categories (which I don't think are necessarily completely separate from each other).
Fear
Face
Faith
Full of self
Feeling good about self
FEAR as a motivator, is pretty obvious. When your back is up against the wall & when you are afraid of the consequences of your actions or inactions, it can be a powerful motivation. Some examples.
Studying for a test because you are afraid of failing it.
Avoiding someone who threatens you or who is threatening to you. That is fear of getting bullied.
FACE can be a powerful motivator, especially within certain communities. Sometimes people bravely say things like I don't care what others think, but their actions put lie to the words. Anyway, trying to 'keep face' is actually based on a specific type of fear. That is the fear of ridicule, humiliation or being shunned. Some example:
A family to trying to hide a 'family issue', like a spouse's drinking.
Parent(s) threatening to cut off their children if they get involved with someone whom they don't approve of. Especially, if it causes 'shame' in the parent(s) circle or community.
FAITH to me is doing the right thing, even when it is not the easiest or popular choice to make. It can be tied to a certain 'religion' it is an acquired sense that a certain set of choices are the right thing to do. In a sense it is adherence to doing the 'right' or 'honorable' thing to do AKA the golden rule. Some examples:
Helping a person stranded on the side of the road change a tire or helping a stranger jump their car even when we are tired and want to be somewhere else.
Standing up for an unpopular kid at school.
FULL OF SELF to me means you're motivation is to do what you want because you think you deserve it or are owed it. Essentially it is a narcissist's motivation. I don't believe that trying to save face is narcissistic, but I believe that it can be a characteristic of someone who is one. Some examples:
Being demanding due to your status because you believe you are entitled to it. We've all heard of stories of famous athletes, actors, singers, politicians, authors, etc. treating people around them poorly because they believe that due to their importance, they shouldn't have to be bothered in any way and should be catered to.
Shutting others down and showing an unwillingness to entertain another point of view because your so smart or so important that the point of view of others doesn't inherently matter.
FEELING GOOD ABOUT SELF as a motivation can have overlap with faith. If you are acting on your faith, you will likely feel good about yourself. That being said, I am talking about political correctness (left or right) and the desire to present or see yourself as a 'good person' because you are thoughtful enough. As a disclaimer, I think just because something is deemed 'politically correct' doesn't mean that it is wrong. I just may mean the motivation for it might be off. Some examples:
Pushing what can sell to yourself is 'thoughtful' agenda to prove you are a thoughtful person.
The agenda itself might be appropriate, but the desire to prove yourself as being the more thoughtful person could be too self-centered.
It could be on the left trying to show how 'tolerant' you are (as compared to others).
It could be on the right trying to show how 'patriotic' you are (as compared to others).
Pushing extreme tolerance or extreme righteousness to overcompensate for your failings/feelings when the best thing to do would just be to work on yourself or come to terms.
This could look like pushing tolerance to the extreme to overcome your discomfort with yourself. In other words, if I push to make everything acceptable, then I can 'normalize' to myself what I'm uncomfortable about.
This could look like pushing extreme religious piety to compensate for your hidden failings.
There are a number of black and whites in life, but there are also many shades of grey with regard to motivation. To wit: one's motivation(s) may be off, but their actions (or inactions) might be appropriate. In politics, that can lead to what we call strange bedfellows or people who arrive at the same point coming from a different motivation. Similarly, people often have mixed motivations that is to say, they may have a more altruist motive for an action, but they also may have a selfish motivation for the same action. For example, setting up a play date for your kid with a neighborhood kid. On the one hand, you are giving him or her a great opportunity to socialize. On the other hand, it can free you up to catch up on your sleep or run an errand just for yourself.
--
I guess my takeaway from this whole post would be:
For people to make sure their motivations are healthy.
For people to be honest--especially to themselves--about their motivations.
For people to accept that selfish motivations can be okay from time to time, especially if it doesn't infringe on others and/or if there is a non-selfish motivation tied to their actions as well.
For people to not let their hangups guide their motivations, especially if their motivations impose their one-sided view on others.
For people to understand that it's okay to have mixed motivations such as trying to help others while feeling good about yourself in the process.
I learned a valuable lesson back in 2006 when I lost around 50 pounds. Choosing to do what's best for you has to be a personal choice in order for you to best implement or stick with it. My personal choice happened by 'accident'. I hadn't been happy with my weight for a long time and I tagged along with my daughter's mom when she hired a personal trainer at the gym. The trainer was actually very cool and didn't mind me working out along side her. Anyway, in the process, I'd started running again and I started losing weight. Once I dipped below 200lbs, it was like a light bulb went off. I realize that I could really lose a significant amount of weight with exercise and diet choices. In other words, I'd personalized the steps necessary to lose the weight. I'd been teased about putting on the weight and I'd been told by my physician that I could stand to lose some weight. Heck I remembered that the Bible even exhorts us to remember that our "body are a temple", which can be interpreted to include keeping ourselves fit or in shape.
Yes, despite wishing I could weigh less, teasing, my doctor's encouragement, and even biblical reference to respecting my body, I could not be moved to do what I needed to. It was only when I embraced the choice to lose weight and become more fit that I actually did it successfully.
--
Part of the equation of losing weight was to realize that I couldn't just deny all 'bad foods'. I realized doing so would just put me in a mindset that I was 'depriving' myself and in a weak moment that I would binge on junk food. Once again, if I tried to avoid all 'junk food' at all cost because I was 'supposed to', I would fail. I knew I could not embrace a total ban on junk food, so I did the next best thing, limit and replace--limit servings & proportions and replace with a 'less bad' choice when possible. Once again, in order for me to be most successful in my weight loss, I had to embrace a wise choice.
--
I've come to see in myself and others around who have struggled at times with making the best choices and/or addictive behavior, that only we will make the best choices only when we are ready to. It can be frustrating or upsetting for those close to or who live with such a person. But, they have to be aware that it is rarely about them, but instead about the one who is struggling. The person struggling with bad and/or addictive choices often times doesn't always feel like they are in control. Shaming the person might work for a little bit, invoking or pointing out their religious beliefs (Christianity) might work for a little bit and even getting someone else to intervene for a bit might help, but ultimately the person has to be ready.
It doesn't matter how much an addict loves his family, friends, God, etc., If he or she tries to 'sober up' strictly for any of them, he or she will likely fail. If he or she on the other hand wants to 'sober up' because they don't like that aspect of their life and they are ready, then they have the best chance to succeed. As a secondary motivation love of family and friends and love and obedience to God are wonderful, but it has to start with the addict.
Perhaps the biggest revelation on the matter occurred regarding my faith. As a Christian, I used to expect that I should be perfect and I would beat myself up for being flawed, making mistakes and falling short. Eventually, after so many failures, I became discouraged that I couldn't be a 'good enough' person to call myself a Christian. So, I gave up trying. It is only in more recent years, that I learned that I will make the best choices if underneath it all, I want to. I want to be obedient to my faith and Higher Power, but I ultimately, it has to be something that in my heart I strive and long for. For example, it is important for me to be a good father for my daughter. If I were only do the right things for her because I wanted to keep her mom off my case, eventually, I'd fail. But, it is my goal in my heart to be the best dad for her.
I am sure if I opened this post to everyone I know or friends of friends, literally, we could write a book on the subject matter. But, alas it is late and I have to get sleep.
In the meantime, from what I see: When desiring to make the best choices, always, always make sure the choices are yours first and foremost. You should desire to make the best choices in your life for others involved too, but you risk failure if they are the sole reason for your choices.
Anyway, the twelve steps of AA, effectively communicate this message (focusing on step 1 and 6):
We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.
Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
I was talking with a friend a while back and one of his in-laws has been a divisive force in his family. It seems as if she never really tried to accept him. He found a similar dynamic in another situation near to him. It made me think about something. Sometimes, for no good reason people close to you decide not to accept you. Often to the point of outright rejection or hostility, leaving you wondering what the hell happened. Other times, those close, if they do 'accept' you, it's a grudging because we are related or friend of friend situation. In other words, within the tie-in, they'd reject you.
So, how can you tell if someone close is really rejecting you or grudgingly 'accepting' you?Here are what I see as symptoms of such a relationship:
Do they ever ask about how you are doing or do they just go straight to how they are doing? If they do ask you, do you feel it's a formality?
Sometimes I think people just aren't in a place to be a friend or family, whether it is out of selfishness or brokenness.
They talk to you because they feel like 'they have to'. Therefore, they talk about what they want and not what's important to moving the relationship forward.
When evaluating whom to spend time with, do they treat you as a priority--not necessary 'the' priority--or a fallback option?
Everyone has to live their own life and take what time they need for themselves. Healthy relationships start with making sure to treating ourselves well.
In unhealthy relationships, they always treat you like they'll spend time with you IF there a no 'better' options?
You find out after rejecting spending time with you, they quietly spend time with others.
You find out that they asked others first and when they were rejected by others, they reached out to you late in the game. In other words, when all other plans/possibilities fell through, they reached out to you.
Do they ever attempt to or offer to meet you half way or do they 'expect' you to always shoulder the burden.
This could mean time, money, location, effort, etc.
This doesn't mean an expectation of shouldering the burden equally, but instead the sense that they are at least trying to be fair.
Do you get the sense that if you didn't have the tie-in, you'd never hear from them?
Tie-in could be relatives in common, friends in common, kids in common, an immediate neighbor or some other similar dynamic.
They rarely talk to you outside of the 'group'.
If they do talk to you, it is only because not doing so would be more awkward or obvious.
I used to get mad, upset or irritated with these type situations or people when I saw this dynamic in a 'relationship'. I realize there are effectively two ways to deal with these situations: Taking it personally and treat it as about you or treating it as a limitation on their part and deal accordingly. I have come to realize, it is usually best to treat it as a limitation on their part. That is to say, they don't know how to be a friend or family to me. In some ways, it didn't matter whether that was due to their selfishness or ignorance. It still wasn't worth fretting over.
Ultimately, my takeaway on how to deal with people who reject you or accept you grudgingly is this:
Don't take it too personally. Often times, you just happen to be the person playing the role--brother-in-law, the other friend who is the object of jealousy, the 'competition' for your friend's spouse, etc.
Don't repay slights. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, but a race to the top.
Realized that not all people are capable of treating you as you should be treated.
Expose yourself to them only as much as you are willing to safely. Think of it as taking only the amount of money that you are willing to lose to the casino. If you accept and put a limit on your loses, then if you actually 'lose' it won't be as big a deal as you've factored it in.
Where necessary, step away as quietly and gracefully as you can in order to protect yourself. Stepping away doesn't have to be a drama, but it can in a way be a quiet, but definitive statement.
What it all boils down to this: if someone wants to get along with you, they will and will overlook any flaws you have. If someone doesn't want to get along with you, they will find a reason not to like you. You can take it personally, but it's usually not worth it.
As I am posting this around Inauguration Day 2017, I realize this applies to Presidents too. If someone wants to like the POTUS, they will despite any/many flaws. If they want to dislike the POTUS, they will in spite of good deeds or good policies the POTUS is has pushed.
