Hmm...
I was very tired today after work as the day required me to use my brain rather extensively, so I opted for sifting through various livejournal pages/communities for something fairly light, but perhaps thought-inspiring, to read. I ran across the following in a comment, which was posted in response to an entry regarding undergraduate student-professor relationships, ethics, and the like. Essentially, some girl was in love with her professor and thought he liked her back. He was involved in a serious, long-term relationship with another woman (with a child, though perhaps not necessarily married), and upon being confronted on the topic, stated very clearly, concisely, and definitively that he was not interested in the student, never meant to suggest to her that he might be, and does not wish to discuss this any further. I suppose she was seeking some type of advice (or maybe sympathy?).
"Since he's already in a committed relationship, he's motivated to interpret and remember all of your interactions - and his own actions - as consistent with respecting the relationship he's already in. This applies even if, at the time, another interpretation made more sense to you and might have made more sense to a neutral observer."
It may have been more appropriate for me to post this out of context as that is how I took it and how I chose to think about it. I think that it's entirely unimportant what the actual situation is; however, the idea that the commenter is expressing is something that perhaps did not ever strike me as obvious and universally applicable. That may require some clarification...
The statement implies that people in committed relationships always put their relationships first [or, at the very least, are under the impression that they are doing so], and, that in interactions with other people, they take actions while consciously and actively trying to preserve the integrity of their existing and important relationship. It also seems to imply that these actions may not be interpreted in the same way by those at whom they are directed, or, for that matter, those who may just be watching from the sides or hearing the story later. It strikes me because I've spent a lot of time thinking about this type of thing recently (if you don't already know why, the reason isn't really important anymore).
It seems that people act in very odd ways sometimes. I've run into several awkward sets of circumstances over the course of my ventures in higher education, and I've found that the way that people act or react to them is often very, very different from both the way that I would have acted and the way in which I would have expected them to act. These actions and reactions have even managed to strike me, at times, as entirely inappropriate, unreasonable, and in all ways unacceptable. When I find myself in such predicaments, I tend to try to take more steps back from a situation (zoom out, if you will) than I already have and to look at it again. I've learned that occasionally, things that may strike me as very obviously unacceptable appear to be entirely appropriate courses of action to other people. It's difficult to understand and impossible to generalize why that may be. I actually have a good concrete example, but I don't want to discuss it here in detail as it is a thing of the past and ought to be left there.
The reason I felt this comment was important is that really, it's based on the same concepts on which I base much of my ways of thinking about and dealing with (reasonably mature) human beings. I assume them to be decent. I assume that when they do or say anything, they do so in the best interests of themselves and all of those who are in any way important or relevant. The thing is, sometimes, these actions may appear to be very bad and wrong, but the basis for their existence isn't. My point is that I don't think it's very fair to judge anybody simply by the actions that they take. I know that "actions speak louder than words," and so forth, and that you can't excuse the immense love that humans have for doing absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable things by trying to pry into their brains every time to find out why they did it, but sometimes it is worthwhile to ask, "How in the world did he/she decide to do something like this?" before you condemn people.
I guess the context in which I think this is particularly relevant is that of interpersonal relationships of any kind, particularly those where two (or more) people are quite intimate (in any imaginable way). [Admittedly, it is also important to me because I now find myself in a committed, perhaps long-term relationship with someone whose mind I can't always read very easily and who's been known to do very upsetting things at times]. I've had a lot of conversations with my mom, my friends, my acquaintances, and significant others about just how much anyone ought to be willing and able to tolerate in any type of relationship. What is acceptable behavior? What isn't? What is forgivable? What types of things can a person do to show you that they are certainly wrong or right for you (as a friend, partner, or anything else)? I suppose that I find most responses to this far too simplistic. I also believe that had I thought in simpler terms and acted in simpler ways, I would not be where I am and with whom I am today (in both the just-friends and the love-of-my-life senses). I am glad that I am.
Thoughts?
"Since he's already in a committed relationship, he's motivated to interpret and remember all of your interactions - and his own actions - as consistent with respecting the relationship he's already in. This applies even if, at the time, another interpretation made more sense to you and might have made more sense to a neutral observer."
It may have been more appropriate for me to post this out of context as that is how I took it and how I chose to think about it. I think that it's entirely unimportant what the actual situation is; however, the idea that the commenter is expressing is something that perhaps did not ever strike me as obvious and universally applicable. That may require some clarification...
The statement implies that people in committed relationships always put their relationships first [or, at the very least, are under the impression that they are doing so], and, that in interactions with other people, they take actions while consciously and actively trying to preserve the integrity of their existing and important relationship. It also seems to imply that these actions may not be interpreted in the same way by those at whom they are directed, or, for that matter, those who may just be watching from the sides or hearing the story later. It strikes me because I've spent a lot of time thinking about this type of thing recently (if you don't already know why, the reason isn't really important anymore).
It seems that people act in very odd ways sometimes. I've run into several awkward sets of circumstances over the course of my ventures in higher education, and I've found that the way that people act or react to them is often very, very different from both the way that I would have acted and the way in which I would have expected them to act. These actions and reactions have even managed to strike me, at times, as entirely inappropriate, unreasonable, and in all ways unacceptable. When I find myself in such predicaments, I tend to try to take more steps back from a situation (zoom out, if you will) than I already have and to look at it again. I've learned that occasionally, things that may strike me as very obviously unacceptable appear to be entirely appropriate courses of action to other people. It's difficult to understand and impossible to generalize why that may be. I actually have a good concrete example, but I don't want to discuss it here in detail as it is a thing of the past and ought to be left there.
The reason I felt this comment was important is that really, it's based on the same concepts on which I base much of my ways of thinking about and dealing with (reasonably mature) human beings. I assume them to be decent. I assume that when they do or say anything, they do so in the best interests of themselves and all of those who are in any way important or relevant. The thing is, sometimes, these actions may appear to be very bad and wrong, but the basis for their existence isn't. My point is that I don't think it's very fair to judge anybody simply by the actions that they take. I know that "actions speak louder than words," and so forth, and that you can't excuse the immense love that humans have for doing absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable things by trying to pry into their brains every time to find out why they did it, but sometimes it is worthwhile to ask, "How in the world did he/she decide to do something like this?" before you condemn people.
I guess the context in which I think this is particularly relevant is that of interpersonal relationships of any kind, particularly those where two (or more) people are quite intimate (in any imaginable way). [Admittedly, it is also important to me because I now find myself in a committed, perhaps long-term relationship with someone whose mind I can't always read very easily and who's been known to do very upsetting things at times]. I've had a lot of conversations with my mom, my friends, my acquaintances, and significant others about just how much anyone ought to be willing and able to tolerate in any type of relationship. What is acceptable behavior? What isn't? What is forgivable? What types of things can a person do to show you that they are certainly wrong or right for you (as a friend, partner, or anything else)? I suppose that I find most responses to this far too simplistic. I also believe that had I thought in simpler terms and acted in simpler ways, I would not be where I am and with whom I am today (in both the just-friends and the love-of-my-life senses). I am glad that I am.
Thoughts?