Being shouted at
Nov. 1st, 2017 10:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIf I'm sure someone is unreasonable, or just that I don't want to listen, I can withstand them very effectively. I'm not *great* at social interaction, but when it's blatantly clear someone else is ignoring normal-polite-convention, I don't feel a *moral* imperative to hold up end. Like, maybe you should never be deliberately hurtful to someone, but if you tell someone fifteen times that you're late for something important, and they keep saying, "oh, I just remembered", etiquette is clearly on YOUR side when you say you need to go and walk off, even if they keep shouting a conversation at you as you walk away. It may be HARD to do that, if society trains you not to, but it's *OK*.
But in many other situations, basically whenever anyone expresses something forcefully, with hurt or anger, I always feel obligated to agree with them immediately. And indeed, it feels hypocritical to exaggerate my agreement, so I feel like I need to agree -- and then make sure all the rest of my brain is updated accordingly, I can't go back to ignoring it afterwards. For a long time I rationalised that as caring about them, and not invalidating them (after all, trusting someone when they tell you about something they're really angry/upset/passionate about is usually a good thing).
But I have to admit, that rationalisation, even if it might be more flattering, is not exactly true. I feel obliged to agree a lot more urgently when someone is forceful about something, even when I'm *not* more sure they're right.
What made me realise was interacting with young children, old enough to talk clearly but young enough to occasionally have angry meltdowns where I could understand the cause even though I couldn't fix it. That just being shouted at gives me an intense urge to cave in, even though I know with complete confidence that (a) I couldn't have averted the problem in any way (b) the anger comes more from hunger, frustration, or general overwhelmedness, not the particular thing (c) being reassuring is more help than anything else. And indeed, if it happens, I do deal with it the right way and it is ok after, and it's not their fault, it's the fault of the situation.
But it made me realise, that it wasn't anything about other people, a bit of my brain is just programmed to stop standing up to people when they shout at me, and even though it performs a useful function, it's can often be a really bad thing and I shouldn't let it run rampant.
But I don't know what I SHOULD do with that bit of my brain. It's not exactly, "I will agree with people even though they're wrong if they shout". It's like, "if they shout, then my brains assumes they can't possibly be wrong". And often that's good -- if someone has a legitimate grievance, it should be on me, not on them, to make understanding happen, so blank-check agreement could be necessary. But I also know, many people may not play by the rules -- may simply have learned that making a fuss gets their way, and not necessarily be more right, and not standing up to them is more like cowardice than justice. But I don't want to stop in the moment to debate if someone's grievance is justified (unless I already know in advance).
But in many other situations, basically whenever anyone expresses something forcefully, with hurt or anger, I always feel obligated to agree with them immediately. And indeed, it feels hypocritical to exaggerate my agreement, so I feel like I need to agree -- and then make sure all the rest of my brain is updated accordingly, I can't go back to ignoring it afterwards. For a long time I rationalised that as caring about them, and not invalidating them (after all, trusting someone when they tell you about something they're really angry/upset/passionate about is usually a good thing).
But I have to admit, that rationalisation, even if it might be more flattering, is not exactly true. I feel obliged to agree a lot more urgently when someone is forceful about something, even when I'm *not* more sure they're right.
What made me realise was interacting with young children, old enough to talk clearly but young enough to occasionally have angry meltdowns where I could understand the cause even though I couldn't fix it. That just being shouted at gives me an intense urge to cave in, even though I know with complete confidence that (a) I couldn't have averted the problem in any way (b) the anger comes more from hunger, frustration, or general overwhelmedness, not the particular thing (c) being reassuring is more help than anything else. And indeed, if it happens, I do deal with it the right way and it is ok after, and it's not their fault, it's the fault of the situation.
But it made me realise, that it wasn't anything about other people, a bit of my brain is just programmed to stop standing up to people when they shout at me, and even though it performs a useful function, it's can often be a really bad thing and I shouldn't let it run rampant.
But I don't know what I SHOULD do with that bit of my brain. It's not exactly, "I will agree with people even though they're wrong if they shout". It's like, "if they shout, then my brains assumes they can't possibly be wrong". And often that's good -- if someone has a legitimate grievance, it should be on me, not on them, to make understanding happen, so blank-check agreement could be necessary. But I also know, many people may not play by the rules -- may simply have learned that making a fuss gets their way, and not necessarily be more right, and not standing up to them is more like cowardice than justice. But I don't want to stop in the moment to debate if someone's grievance is justified (unless I already know in advance).
no subject
Date: 2017-11-01 10:42 am (UTC)