Discernment on meeting new people

[Meechel17]

How is there such a disconnect between someone who believes in fair trade coffee and rights for workers and environmental responsibility? How can your eyes be open to some things and not others along the same vein?

Sometimes I think most people are just collections of points of view that they get from various sources. Like there's no common thread that connects them...or that there's no deep unifying principle from which to view various separate topics as an integrated whole. Maybe that's a reasonable explanation?

I just get lonely feeling like I'm the only one in this area who believes in truth.

I thought something like that too at one time. My real concern, though, turned out to be more related to needing a mutually caring relationship where there were no concerns about hidden self-interests or ulterior motives. It allows me to feel comfort in a way that knocks the edge off that loneliness feeling. Could be different for you, though, I don't know. Might be worth thinking about?

I don't mean to imply that you're not wanting to share truth with a stranger - I'm sure you want to as much as I, it's just that, from experience with people, it appears more like people aren't looking for 'truth' so much as they're really asking for help relating to information or situations as they perceive them - like a plane that lacks a programmed approach or 'attitude' towards it's final destination. If you do tell them 'truth', you'll probably have better outcomes if you present it within their own frame of reference - which is most likely a motley collection of other people's points of view that they feel comfortable with.

I think you're right about people being collections of points of view from various sources without a deep unifying principle. Well said. Thank you.

And I think needing a mutually caring relationship without concerns about hidden self-interests or ulterior motives is what we all want (at least the non-psycho/sociopaths among us). Reading Volume 8 of The Wave series about Dynamics of Love really brought this home for me.

I appreciate your comments about people looking for "truth" - that makes sense that a relative frame of reference is required or what is being discussed won't even resonate in any way.

 

[Buddy]

I think you're right about people being collections of points of view from various sources without a deep unifying principle. Well said. Thank you.

You're welcome, but that's also just a re-phrasing of how, in ISOTM, Gurdjieff has described the majority of people. It really pays off to read and think carefully about what Gurdjieff talks about and then go do something physical. That seems to give those neural patterns time to "sink in". Next thing you know, you'll "know it" and you'll observe this for yourself when you talk to people, but only because it's the truth. If G had been lying, the results would be ambiguous. As it is, it's plain as day - at least to me.

And I think needing a mutually caring relationship without concerns about hidden self-interests or ulterior motives is what we all want (at least the non-psycho/sociopaths among us). Reading Volume 8 of The Wave series about Dynamics of Love really brought this home for me.

I appreciate your comments about people looking for "truth" - that makes sense that a relative frame of reference is required or what is being discussed won't even resonate in any way.

This also ties in with a lesson from Crucial Conversations, i.e., unless your listener is satisfied that you know or care enough about him that you are not bringing something up just to use it as some kind of a weapon against him, then he will only pretend to be listening anyway. Because he's thinking defensively and because he might figure you don't know his frame of reference.

This is also related to what Laura has talked about as it deals with how people tend to use the word "should" with regard to others. Putting it in my own words, basically the lesson is that when people use "should", it's rarely because they are informing someone with information that would lead to positive outcomes for them, inasfar as you know what they prefer. Mostly we're saying that if he would do so-and-so, then that would be more in accord with what we wish (for them).

I'm hoping you can see the connections here, because to me it also all ties in with External Consideration. That's one of those concepts that easy enough to grasp intellectually, but sometimes absolutely torturing to implement fully, I think. :) And granted, that can feel lonely at times.

 

[Meechel17]

I think you're right about people being collections of points of view from various sources without a deep unifying principle. Well said. Thank you.

You're welcome, but that's also just a re-phrasing of how, in ISOTM, Gurdjieff has described the majority of people. It really pays off to read and think carefully about what Gurdjieff talks about and then go do something physical. That seems to give those neural patterns time to "sink in". Next thing you know, you'll "know it" and you'll observe this for yourself when you talk to people, but only because it's the truth. If G had been lying, the results would be ambiguous. As it is, it's plain as day - at least to me.

And I think needing a mutually caring relationship without concerns about hidden self-interests or ulterior motives is what we all want (at least the non-psycho/sociopaths among us). Reading Volume 8 of The Wave series about Dynamics of Love really brought this home for me.

I appreciate your comments about people looking for "truth" - that makes sense that a relative frame of reference is required or what is being discussed won't even resonate in any way.

This also ties in with a lesson from Crucial Conversations, i.e., unless your listener is satisfied that you know or care enough about him that you are not bringing something up just to use it as some kind of a weapon against him, then he will only pretend to be listening anyway. Because he's thinking defensively and because he might figure you don't know his frame of reference.

This is also related to what Laura has talked about as it deals with how people tend to use the word "should" with regard to others. Putting it in my own words, basically the lesson is that when people use "should", it's rarely because they are informing someone with information that would lead to positive outcomes for them, inasfar as you know what they prefer. Mostly we're saying that if he would do so-and-so, then that would be more in accord with what we wish (for them).

I'm hoping you can see the connections here, because to me it also all ties in with External Consideration. That's one of those concepts that easy enough to grasp intellectually, but sometimes absolutely torturing to implement fully, I think. :) And granted, that can feel lonely at times.

I have downloaded ISOTM on Kindle, and I have the hard copy of "The Fourth Way", but I haven't delved very deeply into either of them. I have been reading a bit of The Fourth Way at night before bed, but I will switch that up to read Gurdjieff before I go do gardening or my nightly walk with the dogs or something physical to help with real understanding. Thanks for the tip.

The Crucial Converstions thing - yes, absolutely, I can remember clearly many conversations where this was definitely happening. I need to be able to identify that in the moment and change my "tactics" - steer into a neutral zone where who I'm talking to can feel secure and then not be on the defensive and just have a "normal" conversation. I know I do that sometimes - instead of fully listening, I was thinking about what my rebuttal will be, or what I will say next.
I have really come to dislike the word "should" and am trying to use it less. That whole judgement thing comes really easily to me (my father is terrific at it as is my husband - did I recreate a pattern much there, lol) and that is something I've been steadily working on for a few years now. Sometimes it's one step forward and two steps back, but I'm still working on it.

 

[Buddy]

I can remember clearly many conversations where this was definitely happening. I need to be able to identify that in the moment and change my "tactics" - steer into a neutral zone where who I'm talking to can feel secure and then not be on the defensive and just have a "normal" conversation.

In the material mentioned, you may find the idea of "keeping an eye on your North Star." The idea is to have in mind what you want the conversation to accomplish - for yourself AND the other person. If you know this ahead of time, it will help you keep your focus on the goal.

In the most recent conversation of this nature that I had, I needed to persuade a belligerent person to use hand sanitizer before serving himself from a community buffet (of sorts). This person has always had problems with authoritative role models and with previous management and tends to view any such approach as a contest of deciding who will take a dominant role and who will be the submissive one.

I knew this going in, so in a friendly, chatty voice I explained that the anti-bacterial soap he just used was good but not enough. In our situation, the alcohol in the hand sanitizer, used properly, would kill more germs before letting them be passed to utensils and food items others will also be touching - others with various levels of compromised immune systems and sensitivities. I also explained that the practice would show others that he was also FOR their health and that he was willing to demonstrate compliance with health department regulations and house rules for that purpose.

He did what was asked, everyone present observed it, and the goal was accomplished.

It seems no one had previously taken the time to temporarily overlook his attitude long enough to get the needed information through his defenses. It appeared to me that in the absence of a perceived "attack" from me, then when he "saw the light", so to speak, he complied while expressing appreciation for the explanation. Our relationship easily improved from there.

That's just one minor example in a relatively nonthreatening circumstance, but I hope it shows how this "North Star" idea can help keep you from being derailed while doing your job or carrying out a goal.