Accepting people even when you don't fully understand or appreciate them.

I won't go into much detail for anonymity reasons, but I became aware of a family that had faced a very sad circumstance in their life.  They were culturally very different from me.  I had had some experience (and friendships) from people of that culture.  However, those around me hadn't necessarily had the same.  So, not everyone in my circle fully appreciated the family's reaction to their sad circumstance.  When you broke down their reaction, the family's reaction is quite logical.   Fully embracing it publicly could, at least in theory, involve the loss of face.  Besides, as I discovered with the loss of my dad, mom and closest sibling in recent years, life and its grind and responsibilities do not stop just because you face hardship. 

Putting myself in the family's situation, I am sure I would react differently.   Part of me says, they weren't really reacting well.  However, as I have noted in prior posts, our reactions to life circumstance don't always follow script.   For example, love and grief do not always abide by what is expected or even necessarily socially acceptable.  I have to consider that maybe they are handling thing the way their life needs require them to, especially in light of their particular culture.

This gets to a larger point.  We are shaped by our life experiences.  We are shaped by who we grow up around and who we spend time around and the cultural influences we listen to.   This shapes the way we think and the way we read or interpret situations or people.   For example, if you grow up in an environment in which people are often duplicitous and will not necessarily tell you how they feel (or feel about you) to your face, you will be caught off guard when you run into people who are more honest and say what they think straight to your face.

Unfortunately, in our society, for worse or better, our life experiences, can limit us to understanding others who fall outside our familiarity zone.   For example, if a family member died doing something they shouldn't one family might quietly bury that person with little fanfare or acknowledgement.  The circumstances surrounding the death might bring too much 'shame' to the family and negative publicity in 'their community'.  So, they quietly handle it and move on.   That is their way of coping and surviving in their community, their circle.  They are probably broken up about it, but they also know they have to carry on.   Another family might publicly acknowledge their loved ones' flaws, how they missed the signs and even tell their story in hopes that other families don't have to go through the same heartache.  People not understanding the culture of the first family might see them as coldhearted and be totally oblivious to the pain they are masking and the obstacles they face to fit in.

Personally, often I am a very private person.  My father was a very private person.   There were things that happened in my formative years additionally which shaped this aspect of my personality which I won't get into here.   However, one thing I will mention is this: I have dealt with anxiety disorder since I was 17.   It used to be very debilitating, but between gaining confidence, learning coping skills and having access medicine to combat it, I have learned to cope with it such that I can live a 'normal' life.  That being said, one of my coping skills is being able--to a degree--to compartmentalize that which is bothering me (and that I cannot resolve immediately).  Part of being able to compartmentalize or set aside that which is bothering me is not continually talking about it.  If I am talking about it all the time, I am forced to focus on it straight on and that can cause me excess stress and anxiety, where it is not necessarily productive.   Now, if discover a story or article, find a person who might be helpful and/or have experienced the same issue or problem or have an epiphany on it, I will bring the issue or circumstance to the forefront and discuss or consider it, even if it ramps up my anxiety.   But, I will not keep on bringing up the issue or circumstance constantly when doing so will cause me too much anxiety without any real advancement towards a solution.

A lot of people in this circumstance find a need to 'vent' to find a way to get rid of their anxiety.   They might see the way I handle it as bottling it up or worse they may perceive that my lake of 'venting' implies that I don't care.  That would be the furthest thing from the truth.  Just as I see too much 'venting' as unproductive, stressful and a waste of energy, they might view the relative silence on my part incorrectly and even showing a lack of concern.   My environment and my circumstances shaped me a certain way, not necessarily right or wrong.  Others' shapes them a different way, not necessarily right or wrong.  

I have known people addicted to the bottle and/or drugs, people who have no exposure to either of that in their life may see those people as 'irresponsible' or 'not caring enough' or just some variation of being a 'bad person'.   Yes, there are some people who are sociopaths (or psychopaths) who really don't care about others and will do whatever they want just to 'feel good' and don't care who it affects or who is hurt in the process.  But, with a background that included CSA (childhood sexual abuse), family dysfunction (stemming from at least my grandparents, if not further) and seeing similar issues in others, I know that people do things to try to escape the pain of their traumas, often times not understanding the risk when they start it.  With a relatively healthy childhood and circumstance, this may be hard to full appreciate.   This doesn't mean you accept or condone destructive behavior, but what it does mean is you just classify those who engage in it as selfish, non-caring, narcissist, or sociopath's without knowing the road they've traveled.

I grew up lower-middle/working class.  So, when I hear about a young man or women from a rich and prestigious who are throwing their life away, I can't necessarily relate.  Many assume that if they just have means, life would be totally better and relatively problem free.  However, imagine you grow up in a family with means, but with it you have so much expected of you.   You are expected to join the family practice, business, or become a doctor/lawyer/etc.   You are expected at all times to be on perfect behavior because your name is prominent in the community.   You have all kinds of people who wish to be your 'friend' and you don't really know if it is because they find you interesting or believe that doing so could help them get ahead.   Imagine, you are a person who is not cut out for this, imagine the pressures to succeed put on you by your 'family name' by your family and society, imagine the pressure they put on you to do what they think you should do and not what you necessarily want to, imagine wondering if people are your friends for what they think being such might help them.  Beyond that, we don't always know what demons might hide behind family portrait.  So, I try to listen to their story before I go to the "POOR RICH SPOILED KID" mantra.

--

Our life experiences are helpful to us in understanding other people and their circumstances.  However, we have to be careful not to let them limit us in understanding others, their thoughts, their ways.   Specifically, if we are not careful, we can actually get to a place where we judge others' thoughts and ways as ridiculous, invalid or illegitimate.  Unless we are completely insulated in our own cocoon or echo chamber, we are likely going to find people whose life experiences and/or individual circumstances have led them to thinking, believing, responding and/or behaving in a way different to us.  The point is we may not completely understand them, but if they are important to us, we will accept them even when while we are still working on understanding them.  Just like we wouldn't want them to put them into a box of 'their understanding' of us based on their experiences, we should not put them in a box based on 'our understanding' based on our own experiences.

Caring means sharing: Do Troubled People Care?

In this life, I think everyone has run across people who are troubled or tormented, perhaps maybe even themselves or a close family member or friend. We've all heard the arguments, "pro" and "con", defending and condemning people with hangups and addictions.  By "pro" and "con", I mean arguments that seemingly 'defend the addict' vs. those which seemingly 'condemn the addict', but I digress. These positions boils down to whether you choose to focus on placing blame and culpability on the troubled person OR whether you chose to focus on understanding what is troubling them. I believe it is not an either/or. I believe there is room for both culpability and understanding. One particular perspective that has grated me over the years is this: If he/she cared enough... I will dive into that perspective later, but first let me introduce the culpability/blame vs. understanding model (using arguments I've seen, heard and thought of) and see where I end up.

Culpability/Blame Model

• If she hadn't taken that first drink...
• If he hadn't abuses his medicines...
• If she hadn't gambled away his money at risk at the casino...
• If he/she cared about his/her family than his or her own 'happiness'...
• If it (family/friends/job) were important enough for him/her.
• He is not really trying...
• She is trying to avoid getting in trouble...
• He is making excuses...
• She doesn't care...
• I've faced adversity and didn't need a crutch....

Understanding Model 

• She grow up in a rough home...
• Poor
• Abusive
• Addictive/codependent family.
• He didn't know his dad, mom, ...
• The 'role models' she did have taught her the wrong lessons...
• He was taking addictive pain meds for an injury and got hooked...
• She was just trying to cope with adversity in childhood, young adulthood, etc...
• He had no way to know or no one to tell him that that the path and/or friends he was choosing were risky...
• She never meant to hurt anyone...
• It may seem obvious to us, but to someone his circumstance...

To a 'blamer', the addict is intentionally engaging in destructive behavior for their own selfish desires with callous disregard for how it affects others.  They might see steps taken by the addict to get sober as half-hearted or insincere.  They might view such efforts as a way to avoid having to face punishment.  In short, they believe the addict is totally about themselves.  In short, when others say an addict doesn't care about others, they mean he or she is pretty much a jerk without a conscience. 

To "understanding person", the addict is a person caught up in his or her own personal struggles.  The addict can be in their 'sober' moments is capable of being a compassionate, caring, loving, thoughtful person.  However, the addict, when their addiction takes hold, when they are triggered, are overwhelmed by their 'needs', by withdrawal, by unbearable impulses, it is not necessarily that they don't want to exclude considering others, but they are overwhelmed by their addiction.  In other words, it's not that they wouldn't want to care, but they are not in a good place.  In some ways, it can be a vicious cycle, their addiction has caused harm to themselves and others.  Realizing this in their sober moments can be overwhelming and further push their addiction cycle.

--

From what I see, it's not always clear-cut like.  It is not always, blame/shame the troubled person or understand them.  We must consider a few things first.

• Has the person been clinically diagnosed?
• Is their behavior indicative of a sociopath?
• Is their behavior indicative of an addict?
• Is their behavior indicative of having another mental disorder?
• Has the person tried to get help?
• Has the person shown in their more lucid moments regret or remorse?
• Has the person shown a cold, calculating, planning side or do they seem in the grip of something?
• Has the person ever had a good role model to give them a reference point?
• Has the person ever been given the tools they needed to help themselves or to deal with damage done?

I guess my take has always is this

• People, whether their legally/morally/ethically troubling behavior is a result of hurt/addiction or just a callous disregard for others, they still have to face the consequences of it.   You can be understanding of how their behavior or actions were born and what they are driving by, but ultimately it cannot go 'unpunished'.
• People often have points in their life in which they have a choice and make the wrong choice, like taking the first drink or hanging out with people their better judgment tells them not to.  Choices like this can put us on a bad path and they need to own it. But we should be clear that sometimes the extent of the poor choice is it or wasn't isn't totally clear to them at the time.  I'd venture to guess that many who smoke that first cigarette or joint or take that first bottle, for example, envision the lifelong struggle they are submitting to. 
• If their behavior is a result damage done to them and/or an addiction born out of coping, consequences should include an intervention by mental health professionals or a program designed to help such people.  If their behavior is born out of a callous disregard for others, no capacity to have any empathy, even when 'sober', then the problem is larger than an addiction.
• If they were put in a circumstance in which 'they never had a chance', that should be taken into account before deciding they are 'irredeemable'.  That is to say, they never had a chance to develop good coping skills.  Still negative behavior should have consequences regardless.
• Understand that it is easy to label people troubled by addiction as not caring about others or not wanting to get better bad enough or whatever.   Sometimes that might be true.  Sometimes when given a chance, they do prefer their lifestyle.  Sometimes they just may be too broken to easily help themselves or for that matter help or 'care' about others. In other words, the weakness of their emotional state in conjunction with the nature and strength of their addiction is just too potent a combination to easily rebound or recover from.  

I believe most people have some good in them.  In the movies, Anakin Skywalker (aka Darth Vader) had been a caring young boy and caring young man before he was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force.  But as his son Luke had suspected and discovered in The Empire Strikes Back, deep inside his tormented suit, lived a good man who was seduced and addicted.  It took seeing the Emperor attempt to kill his son, to push him to overcome.  So, before we write off those who struggle with and succumb to addiction even to the point destroying themselves let's look a little deeper.  Like the Emperor, they truly may not care and love that which it brings them. Then again they may be the tormented soul that is Anakin, who wanted to do the right thing but caught up as a result of his struggle and fears and ended up doing the wrong thing.

Just my some thoughts.  Apply them as needed.

Yours truly,

Rich

--

It's true I did extend the invitation
I never knew how long you'd stay
When you hear temptation call
It's your heart that takes

Half a Pie is Still Half a Pie and Other Mistakes in Relating

I believe that unless we are a really big jerk to everyone or we are surrounding ourselves with a toxic people who don't like us and/or don't respect us at all, most of the people whom we run across in our lives will try to relate or empathize with us.  They may do it on a sincere desire to empathize, a feeling of duty that they should try, a desire to look thoughtful or a cynical attempt to virtue signal.   Whatever the motivation, I believe people unwittingly make mistakes in trying to do so.

First a few notes:
* Audience = The person you are trying to 'relate' to.
* Speaker = You, the one who is trying to 'relate'.

Let's think about a few scenarios:

•  I know how you feel or I understand what you are going through.
• Sometimes people have faced very similar circumstances and can relate or understand, but many times, others simply can't know how we feel until they've actually been in our shoes.  Sometimes, it may be beyond their understanding as well.
• I believe when said genuinely, it is a statement designed to convey solidarity, but it said the wrong way it can wring hollow or can even be condescending.
• In other words, you--the speaker--are just trying to hard to stand with them.
• Sometimes, it is better just to quietly stand by another going through trying or tearful times.
• It is important to try to understand yourself and your audience when considering saying this.
• Is there any real possible way you could even remotely know?
• Have you been through a circumstance even remotely close?
• How well do you actually know the person you are considering saying this too? 
• Are you close enough that they know what you mean and/or would take it as a solidarity statement?  
• Are you just an acquaintance and unsure what your audience is thinking but feel compelled to say something 'appropriate'?
• I can relate to what you are going through (followed by how).
• Sometimes you can relate and sometimes you can't.
• Sometimes your audience just wants to vent or 'cry' and they really aren't looking for your reassurance.  They are just looking for a 'pat on the back', not a 'solution' or 'proof' that you know.
• There is a time for serious reassurance and there is a time to just nod or say, "I hear you" or just a hug.
• Maybe your audience does want some reassurance and are open to hearing your situation and how you can make it through tough times.
• Maybe everything will be alright or one day they may feel better, but at the moment your audience may not feel that way.  Perhaps they still need to mourn a bit more before they get to a point of being open to hearing someone who has been there.
• There is time to jump in and 'problem solve' and there is a time to let your audience figure out there own path.
• If your audience asks questions about you and a particular situation--in other words, seeks you out-- obviously, they are open to letting you help them.
• If your audience rebuffs moderate attempts to relate, then they probably aren't ready for your assistance.
• Sometimes, as painful as it is, you have to watch your audience make his or her way through their own tough circumstances.
• People process grief and hurt differently, sometimes they have to figure out their own way or pace.  You can't artificially impose a deadline or a path for another.  You can help, but you can't force it.
• Trying to hard to shield loved ones from the effects of grief and hurt can keep them from gaining the strength they need for future grief or trauma, when they may not have the same 'help' available.
• There is a time to relate and there is a time in which relating could seem like minimizing.
• Age or a similar difference in circumstance could cause a problem in relating.
• People tend to relate better to their own age/circumstance.   I believe this is especially true when life experience levels are different.
• Trying to relate could sound like "in my day" or "where I come from" or some similar disconnect.  Even if you can see the parallel on the relatable issue, your audience may not.   Besides, due to difference in personal circumstances, your audience may not be open to seeing the parallel.
• Perceived expertise or regard could cause a problem in relating.
• Sometimes if your audience hears the same thing from a 'professional', even if you have the life experience to know the same thing, your audience will tend to respond better to the professional.   That's why counseling is such an in demand profession.
• If there is a disconnect or block with your audience, you might say the right things, but your audience may perceive it 'not getting me'.   Once again, an outsider such as a counselor or minister or highly regarded family or other leader might be the answer as they could be perceived as being more 'objective'.

I could go on indefinitely about mistakes in relating, but I will finish the main part of my post there.  Why I called the post "Half a Pie is Still Half a Pie..." is this.   I have never had a very close knit family and I barely knew family outside of immediate family.   This at points in my life has left a void.  Let's face it, for worse or for better, family has an outsized influence on our life.   They are our first example and in many cases, strongest example.  They are the ones who are expected to be the most loyal and at least initially whom we seek the strongest validation from.   Anyway, at times, I have mourned not knowing my extended family and not having a close knit family.   I've been told by people a few times in my life that well, that knowing your (extended) family and getting together with family isn't all that it's cracked up to be.   In other words, 'having' family is not all it's cracked up to be.  To me that has felt tone deaf.   I came up with an analogy to express this.   Mainly that "Half a Pie is Still Half a Pie".   That is, yes, your circumstances aren't perfect either.  In other words, your family might have its problems, but they are still a unit and they have some close, albeit, not perfect relationships.  In other words, you have half a pie.  Some people, for all practical purposes they don't have a family (little overall cohesion with any that they do know and most that they never knew).  That would be little or no pie.   So, trying to relate by saying, well family isn't all it is cracked up to be seems 'tone-deaf'.  Their intentions may be well in stating that, but it doesn't feel relatable.  Anyway, this was just an obvious example of where I've seen mistakes in relating.

Just my 1/50th of a $1.  As with all my blog posts, feel free to take that which helps.  I write them in hopes that it helps people either can find someone to relate to and/or sees a perspective which they hadn't necessarily thought of.

Cheers,

Rich  

Walking in other people's shoes, when they are wearing boots and 'heroism'

When sharing situations or story with others, I've noticed that most of the time people usually are pretty good about listening.  From my experience, when people try to relate, their attempt is usually well meaning,  accepted and appreciated.

However, I've seen and experienced and probably been guilty of one or both of the following sins:

• Try too hard to relate, especially where it is impossible to relate.
• Expressing 'my experience' in a way that could be seen as 'one-upping'.

I refer to the first 'sin' as "walking in other people's shoes when they are wearing boots".   The idea being that you might be able to understand or related on some level to what another is saying--walking in their shoes--but that their circumstance is different enough--they are wearing boots instead of their shoes--that you wouldn't be able to get the same feel for their circumstance by just 'walking in their shoes'.

I refer to the second 'sin' as 'heroism' because whether the intention is pure or not, if you are not careful in relating and tell about 'your difficult circumstance', it could be seen as saying to the other person (condescendingly) that 'your problem is bad, but let me tell you about the time when I...".  In other word, "I've had to deal with worse" or "I dealt with it better".  

• You could be trying to help them 'understand' that their problem 'isn't all that bad' and is 'survivable' based on your experience.  While there MAY be some truth to this, if handled wrong this could effectively dismiss their concern out of hand rather than letting them express it.  Maybe they just need to talk and get it out of their system to realize "you know it really wasn't that big of a deal".  Your motive is pure, but it isn't exactly what is useful to the other party at that time.
• You could say it out of an impure motive--exasperation, jealousy, etc--and effectively shutting them down and telling them to suck it up.  While this may feel good at the moment when you are frustrated, it doesn't necessarily lead to a great relationship.   I believe when you are getting to this point, 'listen' as much as possible, help where feasible and when it is too much or what you think as ridiculous just tell them, "I wish I could be more helpful" and quietly extract yourself from the situation where possible to not make it worse. 

Having said all that, I realize as a parent that sometimes when a kid is being irrational there are time and a place to not 'humor' their thinking/worry.  There are times and places, when you just have to face their circumstance completely logically, despite a desire not to.  They are times and places also where you have to give them context.   The way I try to handle this is letting them know that their concerns or worry is legitimate and but that in the big scheme of things they are still in a good place. For example, if a kid (or an adult for that matter) says, "my life is horrible" and just refuses to acknowledge that the good they have, point out as bad as things may be there are people in this world who are too busy trying to survive to have the luxury of worrying about what they are.  It isn't to dismiss their worry/concern, but to let them know, let's keep it in perspective.

I look at it this way, I believe my Higher Power, God, hears my prayers and concerns and provided my motives are proper He will address them and not dismiss them.  In other words, while He may not see it as a big deal or big issue, He knows it is to me.  Sometimes addressing my concerns  will not mean trying to 'solving' them, but showing me a different perspective.  In my faith, God, in the form of His Son, has walked in my shoes and he has faced everything we have.  He lets me know that, but He doesn't impose His 'experience' on me, but rather let's me know that he has been there.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin. 

Hebrews 4:15

Lest it seem like I am saying, do not try to relate, I believe the furthest thing from that.  It is important to relate and try to empathize with others.  But, IMHO, it is also important to remember the limitations of 'relating'.  

• Sometimes, you are missing key differences that make your situation different enough than theirs as to be not exactly relateable.
• Sometimes, even if you can relate, sometimes people need to experience a situation as theirs first, regardless, process it, mourn it if necessary.  Only then they may be in a better place to hear that they aren't the only ones to be in that situation/circumstance. 
• Sometimes, they need a different person, closer to their age or or just an outsider, for example, to relate.  This I believe is hard for parents to accept.
• Sometimes, they need to hear how you can relate, but they need to hear it at at different time or with a lighter touch such as "I don't know if this helps at all or is anything like..." vs. "I understand". 

I guess the best advice, is to be pure in your motives in listening, attempt to be mindful of what others need and try to give them what you can, understanding that not everyone is open to hearing your words.

Exercises in Bridge Building (or Not)

I was having a conversation recently with someone who will remain unnamed.  I was trying to express or get out a thought and wasn't quite successfully relaying my thoughts. That person was just looking at me in a cool, unhelpful way, not saying anything really and not reaching out trying to help me to where I was headed with my thoughts.   Anyone who has spoke in front a group of people and got stuck on blank, disinterested or even hostile stares knows the feeling.  It is like being stranded or exposed, where the discomfort quickly becomes acute.

So, it occurred to me that I could express this (purposeful?) disconnect in terms bridge building.  That is to say, I was building a bridge to my audience (of one) and ran out of materials--got stuck completing or explaining my thought.  Now, I was left stranded or hanging out there without a way to reach my audience.  Had the person been more friendly to me, they'd have grab some supplies--ideas or thoughts--and started building a bridge back to me.  That is to say, they'd have helped me finish my incomplete thought.  Then we'd have had a connection or been 'bridged' together.  Unfortunately, when what you are trying to communicate is important, something suffers when the other party won't help with building the or connecting to your bridge.

After further reflection, I figured or determined that there are at least four types of bridge-building exercises.  Two involve a misconnection, one involves a one-sided connection and the final one involves a good connection where both sides share in the process and benefits


Scenario 1: Leaving me stranded.

• Characterized by one party getting stuck when trying to express or communicate a thought or idea (run out of supplies and can't build to the other party).  
• The other party instead of helping the the first party finish connecting--building a bridge towards where they had to stop--leaves them hanging.
• A blank, clueless or hostile stare.
• Impatient words or attitude
• General unwillingness or inability to help the other connect
• Compels the first party to make sure they have their thoughts or ideas completely buttoned down when communicating with the other party.
• Discourages the first party from attempting at communicating or connecting, lest they be left hanging when and if they get stuck.

Scenario 2: Close but never quite meeting.

• Characterized when two parties communicate past each other.  It is like each is building a parallel bridge to the other.  
• Both parties want to communicate with each other as characterized by both working on a bridge to the other, but don't know how to reach each other or connect.
• Instead of listening to what the other is saying or the needs of the other, they build a bridge in the direction of where they think the other SHOULD BE and expect the other party to meet them.
• Instead of stubbornly continuing to build a bridge past the other (talking past each other) and trying to force the other into building their bridge in their direction (expecting them to fit into their thinking), each party should actually pause and see how they can meet.
• If they stop in their efforts to build a bridge past each other and they start building a bridge towards each other, the bridge my not look pretty, but it will get them where they need to be--specifically communicating and connecting.  Communication doesn't have to be perfect to be effective.  Just like a bridge doesn't have to be built perfectly to get people to where they need to go.

Scenario 3: Bridges always built completely from one direction

• Characterized when one party is always doing all the bridge building. i.e., in reaching out or communicating with the other.  The other party is open to what you have to say, but they aren't willing to do reach out or do the work to get their.
• Eventually the first party will run out of building supplies when they are the one(s) always building the bridge to the to other side.  That is to say, eventually when one party is responsible for reaching out, communicating, or connecting, eventually that side will tire of being the bridge builder and no longer have it in them.
• This type of bridge building may be effective and communication may be good for a time, but for long term bridge building it will fail miserably.  It doesn't compel or teach the other party to work on a bridge towards you. It may even deprive them of the opportunity to learn how to reach you or even worse it may cover up their disinterest in reaching you--communicating--if it isn't on their teams.

Scenario 4: The two sides shall meet in the middle.

• Characterized when both parties participate in meeting each other in a bridge building exercise (aka communicate or connect).
• One party might do a bit more of the bridge building, but it is clear each side is trying to their part in the bridge building.  (Each are reaching out, communicating and engaging in give and take).
• This is the best long term model.  If each believe the other is an active participant in the bridge building exercise, they will know that if their efforts to build a bridge stall (they struggle with communication/connection for a bit), that the other party will carry the effort for a while.
• In the situation I originally described, the other party to my thoughts or efforts to communicate saw where I was struggling to express myself.  In this scenario, they could have waited patiently while I processed my thought, they could have suggested to me what they thought I might be driving or they could have asked questions to draw that information out.

I feel that it is best possible when needing good communication/connection when dealing with others that, it is always best to extend a little bit of bridge to the other party to start with.  This will show the other party that you are willing to make some effort to meet them in the middle and don't expect them to do all the heavy lifting.  If it is a party that is not necessarily favorably disposed to you, while you extend a little bridge, you limit what you extend.  If it is a party that is favorably disposed to you, it is safer to extend quite a bit of bridge to the other party.  In either case, at some point it is best to give the other party the opportunity to work on building their own bridge back to you.  To deny them that opportunity, deprives them of the opportunity to work on their own communication/connection skills as well sets up an expectation that they don't have to.  In either case, it is important to remember bridge building with others, especially loved ones is not necessarily a one-time exercise but a life-long process.  Learning how to effectively connect and communicate--and maintain such connection/communication--with others, especially loved ones, is something that will always require some work and never should be taken for granted.

I believe my Higher Power (God), made us social creatures, but He also gave us a free will.  Therefore, the desire to communicate and connect with others is always there, but knowledge how to do so effectively and the willingness to do what it takes can be a sticking point.  I believe if we remember these things when considering how we relate to others, we will be at a good starting point for effective bridge building...

Forgiveness: The steps we go through for our own benefit.

As my dad's life draws to a close, I have felt the need to come to terms with what at times has not been the most comfortable or easiest relationship. In some ways, the most difficult relationship of my life. Part of what helps me come to terms with people and circumstances is writing about them.  In other words, allowing my thoughts and feelings see the light of day.  So, over time I have come to some conclusions about forgiveness.  (originally written 3/27/15 - he has since passed away)

About forgiveness:

I've heard it said that forgiveness is not something we do for others, but rather ourselves.   In a way, I see this as true.  This is especially true when the person whom is the object of our forgiveness either doesn't realize that he or she needs to be forgiven or doesn't care about being forgiven.  

We can confront the one who has wronged us and if he/she is ready they might even own up to their offense.  However, there is always a distinct possibility of them them not being recognizing or caring about the wrong they've done to us.  So,what then are we left with at that point: perhaps more resentment.

So, what do we do?  It's believe it's healthiest to forgive them.  I don't mean forgive and accept continued abuse. I mean to forgive them for what they have done and if necessary forgive them for their hurtful tendencies.

I believe the process to forgiveness can be a 4-step process: avoidance, acceptance, understanding and forgiveness  I will elaborate on that:

• Avoidance 
• We might have to pull away from the person who wronged us to prevent further hurt.  
• Alternatively, we might have to pull away to avoid trying the temptation to 'settle the score'.
• Acceptance
• We still get irritated with or by the other person, but we accept that it is time to start trying to forgive our offender. 
• They may not have stopped wronging or trying to wrong us, but we accept at this point that we cannot control them. They may be incapable or unwilling to change, but with avoidance, we've minimized their ability to hurt us.
• This step is characterized by showing outward signs of forgiveness--going through the motions of forgiveness--but not necessarily internally being forgiving.
• This is an important step as it shows we are moving beyond being the victim and worked towards forgiving them.
• Understanding 
• For our peace of mind we are trying to find reasons for why our offender is the way he or she is.  Is it personal or are we just the one in the line of fire?
• This isn't meant to accept or condone their behavior but to understand it better.  That is to say we don't agree with, but understand how our offender could get to the place they are in their thinking or behavior.
• In some cases, we may start to empathize with our offender, depending on what brought them to hurting us.
• Perhaps, he or she had a tough childhood--abuse/neglect/tragedy.
• His or her behavior, while not at all acceptable, may be a coping mechanism.  For example, if he/she did not have any control over rough circumstances during childhood, he/she might exhibit harmful controlling behavior in adulthood as a misplaced defense mechanism.
• In other cases, we may just have to understand that perhaps our offender is wired differently.  Not everyone is wired the same.  We may on some level start to appreciate our offender is just wired differently and doesn't have the capacity to understand how they hurt us nor the capacity to avoid hurting us.  In the worst case, we might be left with understanding that they are (or have become wired to be selfish).  That's not very comforting, but understanding that some people are just that way can at least allow us to move to the forgiveness level.
• Forgiveness
• In this stage, we have pretty well let our anger and resentment go.  That's not to say we don't have 'flare-ups' of anger and resentment, but instead that it doesn't rule us.
• This stage may be characterized by sadness.  Sadness that the relationship in question 'has to be' like it is.
• We may forgive, but that doesn't mean we forget or put ourselves at risk in the situation again.
• It may mean having the person involved--sometimes heavily--in our life.
• It may mean forgiving from afar and for our own sake keeping a safe distance.
• Sometimes forgiveness is expressed directly to the person.  In other cases, it may be implied or unspoken as we no longer showing resentment or anger in their direction.

I will close this by reminding my readers that forgiveness is an age old practice Jesus himself set the bar on this when he said:

...Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." And the soldiers gambled for his clothes by throwing dice.   (Luke 23:24)

 I feel like if He, having committed no sin could do it, then perhaps the rest of us might do well to work on it.

Understanding people where they are, but not going there...

I previously wrote a blog about accepting people where they are called "Accepting people for where they are".  A corollary one is understanding people, but not going where they are.  I've been previously in and I've had friends who have been in unhealthy relationships.  That has given a certain insight into understanding and relating to people.

(Refresh and repost of 2/22/15)

We each meet many people along life's road and most of the time we have to make a decision about how we want our relationship with them to proceed. How much energy, if any, do we put in a relationship with them?  We may get them on some level and may be able to appreciate where they are, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them there (or continue following them).

Pick an addiction--alcoholism, drug addiction, overeating, gambling, etc.  We often have faced similar demons in our life and we can on a deep level understand or relate to what another is going through.  There is even a tendency to want to reach out and help that person as you know their hurt.  They might have been abused, beaten, or otherwise hurt in their life.   You feel bad for them.  Having that sweetness of soul that you would care that much about another who has been hurt or is hurting is wonderful.  It says something about you that you have that much empathy.   However, it is always important to keep your wits about you when dealing with them.

As I see it, there are a few questions you need to ask yourself when determining what role you play in their life of a person who is struggling with a life issue.

• Is the other trying to better him or herself?   That's the basic question.
• In many cases, it isn't so much how quickly they are working to get healed, but rather if they are even trying.
• Progress can be like momentum.  Sometimes a few small 'successes' in healing can lead to confidence to take larger steps, which in turn, can lead to even larger steps.  In other words, it's important not to misjudge the pace of another's recovery.  What appears to be a small step could in fact be a large step.  Ultimately, it boils down to do you have hope with them?
• In some ways, stepping in to 'help' or 'be there' might turn into enabling them or keeping them from facing their demon.  I once had to step aside to let someone I was dating find herself.  Being her 'hero' or 'white night' was giving her an excuse not to 'find herself'.
• Is where they are a place that is dangerous to you?
• You can love and appreciate someone and be encouraged by their recovery, but if it jeopardizes your own, it is best to appreciate them from afar.
• For example, say you and another struggle with a similar demons (such as alcoholism) or toxic-ally opposite demons (body image vs. porn).  If the other's recovery halting at best, you might appreciate or admire that they are trying, but realize that the other could still be very dangerous to you.  However, if they aren't in recovery all, then it goes without saying that they WILL be dangerous to you.
• What can you do safely for them?  That's a followup to the previous point.
• Can you go in the trenches for them?  That is, pick them up and dust them off when they fall or is that too dangerous.
• Can you be a friend they can call when they are heading towards a bad place.  In other words, when they are "in their head", but haven't fully engaged their addict.  
• Do you just have to completely stay away from them until they have hit rock bottom?  Sometimes, when people just aren't ready for recovery.  In this case, if you try to stand out in the middle of the road waving a caution flag, you risk them completely missing your flag or worse them running over you.

In life, you can overlook, forgive, 'forget' and come to terms with people.  You can understand and have empathy for the demons that are driving them, BUT that doesn't mean going going in the trenches with them.  Sometimes, you just have to let go and let God for those who you care most about.  You can understand their struggle, but sometimes for one or both of your sake, you have to step aside, no matter how bad or guilty you feel about it.  Some circumstances are just too big for you and God is better equipped to handle them.

As much as I'd love to blog happy blogs, I realize that's not where everyone is all the time.

Thank for reading again.

Rich