Nobody is ever wrong
Counterpoints to myself yesterday
A few months ago a friend gave me an extremely uncomfortable check on myself.
I’m so grateful.
As a result of the feedback I have been on a big adjustment period in how I talk to people.
While I railed in yesterday’s Substack that people are missing out because they refuse to go deeper within and without themselves, I’m way better at accepting that people don’t have to do shit I think would work for them.
I saved this post because it demonstrated how just getting someone to laugh about their situation can transform it - no vision quest needed. I think if we can laugh about our problems we’ve already succeeded
I was once better at knowing that the best path for anyone is the one they realize themselves.
In a return to that wisdom, when people make a statement now I’m much more likely to agree with them than argue.
From their perspective it’s true.
Sometimes just repeating it will change their view of it. Maybe they’ll even come to the conclusion that I intuited.
But mostly saying yes to people is waving them through so that their energy continues on its journey and changes as it sees fit.
You see, I’m (at least currently) remembering that if somebody wants to change they first have to shout to the universe that they are ready to, and nothing that I can say or do intending to change them will make much of a difference.
They are always right.
Friction seems to work better when it’s naturally induced, rather than my know-it-all presumptions of what works best.
They will repeat the same relationship, identify the same problems, and read the same books rehashing the same pov until something happens differently, or the repetition creates a bubble so big it finally bursts into an openness to change.
I prefer the world of seeking to change, and prefer the company of seekers myself if I’m being choosy. Sometimes that change is in being more accepting of ourselves and building gratitude for what we have, and sometimes it’s tearing our own world to shredded bits of epiphany.
For people not seeking change, the best thing I can do (I think) in friendship is to let their waters rush in whatever direction they’re already going. It’s not my job to dam it up, redirect, or splash around trying to disrupt things for them.
They are right.
Theoretically, this frees up my own energy from worrying about it. I am stumblingly toddling my way around trying to identify the places where people are looking for a challenge or when they’re (un)happily plunging forward.
ChatGPT-3.5 Part 3:
Critique and Complexity
Human behavior is not always rational or easily categorized. Theories of bounded rationality and cognitive biases illustrate that people often act in ways that deviate from purely logical or self-serving motivations due to limitations in cognitive processing and judgment errors.
• Reference: Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting.
In summary, while people frequently act based on perceived obligations, normative beliefs, hedonic motivations, or pain avoidance, their behavior can be more complex and influenced by a myriad of factors. These motivations often overlap and interact, making it difficult to assert that people always act according to one of these four categories exclusively.
ChatGPT-3.5 Part 2:
Integrative Perspectives
While these categories provide a framework for understanding human motivation, integrative theories suggest that human behavior often results from a complex interplay of these factors rather than a single motivation.
• Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Maslow proposed that human actions are motivated by a hierarchy of needs, from basic physiological needs to self-actualization. This model implies that different motivations might dominate at different times.
o Reference: Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
• Self-Determination Theory (SDT): SDT posits that people are motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This theory integrates aspects of hedonic motivation, normative behavior, and avoidance of pain.
o Reference: Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.