the dilemma of opening up
I've been told that I don't get very personal (very often) in here. When I do, I usually keep it vague enough to be factually useless despite the emotional TMI. I tend to write about things that happen in my life or in the world, I post memes, or I ask questions of my readers to get away with not actually having to say anything. Some of my posts do speak to character traits or to the things that really touch me, but I seldom reveal more than that. No deep feelings, inner conflicts, existential anxieties, or areas in which I'm struggling or in need of some personal growth. I've also been told that it seems like an odd choice for me, being such an intensely emotional person. But here's why:
1) It's risky. Opening up in an emotionally meaningful way brings the potential for a sense of connectedness and acceptance, and also the (very discouraging) possibility of being ignored, judged, and/or rejected. I tend to perceive non-response as disinterest (read: apathy, rejection), which stings. If I get all personal and get no feedback, I assume no one wants to read that stuff and take it as a hint to not post those things in the future. Worse, if I get flip, sarcastic, insensitive feedback, I feel like my feelings are... well, a joke. I spent most of my non-adult life having my feelings invalidated, so I'm not eager to replay that here as well.
I also know that it's harder to reply to serious, intrapsychically contemplative, or very personal posts. When they appear on my friends list, I almost always want to reply and almost never do. I can't think of what to say. So on an intellectual level I understand the diminished responding and the desire to (perhaps inappropriately) inject comedy in comments to alleviate one's discomfort with emotional intimacy, but it makes me not want to put myself - my inner self - on the line like that.
2) I feel an obligation not to. (It might be completely irrational, or it might be an accurate interpretation of what some people communicate to me. It's probably a little of both, though I'd bet it's heavily slanted toward the former.) I feel like I have to uphold some illusion of adjustment and non-dysfunction, and portray a model of mental health. As though therapists don't have issues of their own -- right. (Show me a therapist who doesn't.) But it's there -- I feel like I have a duty to be as well-adjusted and enlightened as possible, or to at least present the parts that are, revealing only minor flaws to make me somewhat human and concealing the more major ones that make me just as fucked up as everyone else. That might just be my issue to work through, but I bet there are some grains of truth in there somewhere. Please, tell me what you think.
Omitting the things that make me vulnerable is safer and comfortable in its familiarity, but not terribly satisfying.
1) It's risky. Opening up in an emotionally meaningful way brings the potential for a sense of connectedness and acceptance, and also the (very discouraging) possibility of being ignored, judged, and/or rejected. I tend to perceive non-response as disinterest (read: apathy, rejection), which stings. If I get all personal and get no feedback, I assume no one wants to read that stuff and take it as a hint to not post those things in the future. Worse, if I get flip, sarcastic, insensitive feedback, I feel like my feelings are... well, a joke. I spent most of my non-adult life having my feelings invalidated, so I'm not eager to replay that here as well.
I also know that it's harder to reply to serious, intrapsychically contemplative, or very personal posts. When they appear on my friends list, I almost always want to reply and almost never do. I can't think of what to say. So on an intellectual level I understand the diminished responding and the desire to (perhaps inappropriately) inject comedy in comments to alleviate one's discomfort with emotional intimacy, but it makes me not want to put myself - my inner self - on the line like that.
2) I feel an obligation not to. (It might be completely irrational, or it might be an accurate interpretation of what some people communicate to me. It's probably a little of both, though I'd bet it's heavily slanted toward the former.) I feel like I have to uphold some illusion of adjustment and non-dysfunction, and portray a model of mental health. As though therapists don't have issues of their own -- right. (Show me a therapist who doesn't.) But it's there -- I feel like I have a duty to be as well-adjusted and enlightened as possible, or to at least present the parts that are, revealing only minor flaws to make me somewhat human and concealing the more major ones that make me just as fucked up as everyone else. That might just be my issue to work through, but I bet there are some grains of truth in there somewhere. Please, tell me what you think.
Omitting the things that make me vulnerable is safer and comfortable in its familiarity, but not terribly satisfying.