I'll take that a step further. Say that Ellen turns up at a new job and finds her cafe opponent is a new co-worker -- now they do have to co-exist. I don't think that the 50%/50% thing would be the way to start off -- if the guy says, "I know I was 50% responsible," that's dishonest.
If she starts off with, "I was 100% responsible," that's also dishonest and puts her in a position of weakness right off the bat. This could be fine if he jumps in with "no, it was me," but could set her up for being taken advantage of.
I think in that situation the only tenable direction is for him to say, "I'm terribly sorry, I was having a terrible day but that was no excuse, at any rate you can be sure I won't act similarly in the future." Then she can graciously accept his apology and move on -- but he better not do it again.
0 Replies
Arella Mae
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 09:09 am
sozobe wrote:
I said that I wasn't sure if you were in the mood to debate it right then...!
Hi sozobe! So glad you came! I couldn't remember the exact words that you had said. I remembered we had the conversation and it was something I wanted to explore.
I guess it comes down to semantics again. In I don't think that everyone actually has 50%/50% responsibility, and I think it can be dangerous to assume that.
Can you expound on the dangerous part?
Say that at a cafe, Ellen is talking to her friend about a television show. A guy sitting behind her overhears her and starts yelling and swearing at her. She tries to ignore him but he continues, getting increasingly personal and vicious. She firmly tells him to stop but that just whets his appetite further.
Is she actually 50% responsible? I'm not saying she has no responsibility -- by choosing to speak in public she knew someone might overhear her, for example. But 50%?
However, if you are speaking in a more general way, that everyone can assume that they have some responsibility from the standpoint of trying to heal the rift, I'd mostly agree with that. I just don't think that all rifts need to be healed -- I don't think Ellen needs to heal things with her cafe opponent, I think he was just plain wrong.
That brings up another good point. Sometimes it is just better to let things go and not try to mend fences. I don't have a hard time letting the bad feelings go but I do have a hard time leaving something I did or said misunderstood by someone else. But, I have to take the responsibility for that because I probably didn't get the point across as I should have. I think that is what I meant when I mentioned I thought both people held equal (not sure if I had said equal or not) responsibility.
0 Replies
ossobuco
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 09:11 am
I was taught in landscape architecture school the truism that design doesn't cause human behavior. And it doesn't, as such. Human behavioral tendencies exist before any new design gets drawn up and installed. Still, design can facilitate ease of passage, or slow it down to make the passage more interesting or difficult, or completely thwart it, and one learns as a designer what manuevers of placement of objects like paths or ramps or boulders or waterfalls will cause humans to react in one way or another. This seems analogous to the situation of human discussions..
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 09:13 am
Nice, osso!
By "dangerous," I mean "likely to make the situation worse rather than better, for one or both participants."
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 09:15 am
I agree. That is a good analogy.
Soz, it does seem like co-existence is a major factor in this topic. I would care a lot less about my level of responsibility in a situation with a belligerent stranger than with a friend, co-worker, or relative.
0 Replies
Arella Mae
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:15 am
These are some very interesting replies. I'm not sure that when these kinds of situations are going on we even think about these things. Sometimes when trying to take responsibility for my own personal actions I can give the impression I am talking all the responsibility.
What is a good way to get across my own responsibility in a situation (one that can be discussed, like with a spouse, friend, etc.) but not dismiss responsibility on someone elses' part and yet not seem like I am blaming them completely?
I think communication has some very fine lines. It seems that things get too complicated sometimes.
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:25 am
sozobe wrote:
I said that I wasn't sure if you were in the mood to debate it right then...!
I guess it comes down to semantics again. In I don't think that everyone actually has 50%/50% responsibility, and I think it can be dangerous to assume that.
Say that at a cafe, Ellen is talking to her friend about a television show. A guy sitting behind her overhears her and starts yelling and swearing at her. She tries to ignore him but he continues, getting increasingly personal and vicious. She firmly tells him to stop but that just whets his appetite further.
Is she actually 50% responsible? I'm not saying she has no responsibility -- by choosing to speak in public she knew someone might overhear her, for example. But 50%?
However, if you are speaking in a more general way, that everyone can assume that they have some responsibility from the standpoint of trying to heal the rift, I'd mostly agree with that. I just don't think that all rifts need to be healed -- I don't think Ellen needs to heal things with her cafe opponent, I think he was just plain wrong.
Is he wrong? Why is he yelling at her? I don't understand the situation.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:28 am
That's a big question. I dunno if I have any general answer to it. It depends so much on individual situations.
I guess one thing is to be as proactive as possible. Taking responsibility can be proactive, but isn't enough in and of itself and often can bog things down if there is disagreement about who was responsible.
Proactive would be, in my above example, the cafe guy apologizing, saying he won't do it again, and then not doing it again.
I don't think it necessarily has to be that complicated -- take responsibility for what there is to take responsibility for (but not necessarily more), and then look towards solving the underlying problem. Sometimes that involves even deciding what the underlying problem IS.
New example: Steve and Carly are fighting because Steve forgot to bring home some milk. They can spend time on whether it was Steve's fault for forgetting to bring it home or Carly's fault for not calling him at work to remind him because he's a busy man and has a lot on his mind. That can go 'round and 'round for a long time, without accomplishing anything in particular.
Or: Steve apologizes for not bringing home the milk, Carly acknowledges that she knows that he has a hard time remembering this stuff so if it's really important to her, she should remind him. They agree to establish that in this situation in the future, Carly will remind him, but then Steve REALLY has to bring home the milk or he's in trouble.
The next layer yet is going into why it upset Carly so much that Steve forgot the milk. Is it really because she needs milk, or is it because she feels like he is not paying attention to her anymore, than his mind is always on work all the time? Is Steve feeling like Carly is becoming some sort of shadow of her old self, and needs to be less dependent on him?
Etc., etc.
When the real issues are identified, then the proactive part kicks in again and ways of solving those issues are discussed.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:29 am
He has no good reason to yell at her. That's why he's wrong. He hates the TV show she mentioned, and she reminds him of his ex-wife, and...
No good reason.
(It happens, though, something similar did happen to me once. It wasn't a TV show, forget what it was, but I was talking to a friend and a guy overheard us and started yelling. He was, I presume, not mentally all there.)
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:35 am
If he had no reason to do it, he wouldn't have. Claiming he had no "good" reason is a matter of opinion... based on your own judgment.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:38 am
Nope. I disagree.
I think an important part of being a sane and contented person is recognizing your limits, what you will and won't accept.
If you go around thinking that well maybe that person had a right to be awful to you, maybe it's half your fault (when they DIDN'T have a right, and it's NOT your fault), you'll be perpetually miserable.
IMO.
0 Replies
Arella Mae
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:40 am
sozobe,
That is the crux of it, isn't it? Setting boundaries. Hard to do sometimes.
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:53 am
I don't mean to say that our "Ellen" character was at fault for the guy getting upset (how could she have known?). In my view, the 50/50 thing is wherever the conflict exists.
He causes her to be upset even though she did nothing to bring it upon herself (that's his 50). She is upset that he is yelling at her and chooses to respond in whatever way (that's her 50).
Of course we should recognize our limits, but we should also have respect for others.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:55 am
50% responsibility?
No.
I completely agree that we should have respect for others. Not sure how Ellen, in that situation, is supposed to express her "respect".
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 10:59 am
Well, she could start by not dismissing him as a mental incompetent. She could address him respectfully. And if she decided it was necessary to exit the situation, then she could leave.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 11:03 am
None of those things were present in the initial example. (I explained later that it was based on an experience I'd had, when you expressed doubt that such a thing could happen.) In the example, she was respectful and polite.
Why should she have to leave when the guy is being awful to her for, again, no good reason?
How is she 50% responsible? Not 1% (I mentioned in the initial example that after all she was in public and could expect that what she said would be overheard), not 10%, but 50%?
The guy was clearly more responsible than she was.
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 11:10 am
If she didn't want to leave, maybe she could have called security. What else?
And, again, to say the guy had no good reason is your own judgment. He must have had some kind of reason, or he wouldn't have done it.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 11:14 am
So if a guy catches a squirrel and methodically cuts off the squirrel's tail, while the squirrel is alive, and then proceeds to the squirrels ears, the guy must have a good reason or he wouldn't do it?
0 Replies
echi
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 11:29 am
There must be a reason. Why else would he do it? To decide that there is no reason only contributes to the likelihood of this kind of thing happening again.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 28 Jan, 2006 11:53 am
There are reasons, and there are good reasons. You left off the "good", there.
Of course there is some reason why the guy did it -- he is mentally ill, or is sleepwalking, or misheard her and thought she insulted him, or something. The question is whether it is acceptable for him to do so, or whether it is Ellen's responsibility that he did so. The answer there is a simple no, IMO.
Let me summarize my thinking:
I think the 50/50 thing is a red herring. (That's just for Momma Angel, I know she loves that phrase... ;-)) I don't think it's really useful. I think what's important is:
1.) That people are self-aware and introspective.
2. That people recognize and acknowledge when something is in fact their responsibility.
3.) That people establish and enforce their own boundaries as to what they deem acceptable (or not).
4.) That people enforce these boundaries respectfully and proactively.
