Syl Sabastian's Blog - Posts Tagged "understanding"
Disguised Deception
Podcast: https://anchor.fm/nobelia/episodes/Disguised-Deception-e2e6jb
“The bullshit-manipulator-narcissist is a well-disguised creep who pretends to have a calm facade while provoking others to get upset and “lose it” to manipulate anger, annoyance, irritation, etc. to which the BMN now responds as the wronged party manoeuvring and pretending the other person is the villain.”
Short-Term Survival Mindset
S: - "In reality, toxic people are miserable, and – for some elusive reason – use others in a vain attempt to make themselves feel better." - Interesting L, but the reason isn't elusive. It's because of the Superiority Paradigm, a base mindset, generating exceptionally strong beliefs of "Should," which leads to that kind of behaviour. It's a short-term me-benefit perspective predicated on dominance and superiority for survival rewards.
However, it's being replaced by other paradigms, such as cooperation, already in place, even if it's forced cooperation, which has been civilisation. Now we are transitioning to a Collaboration, which is willing cooperation, the basis for the next evolution, a Play Predominance, where we finally unhook from the stress, preoccupations, and necessities of survival and begin the true movement into a Spiritual Paradigm, which is Ultimate Play. :) :D
Empowered Sobriety
Overall very interesting and useful. Yes, there's much in the OUT BS book. It's exactly about identifying and dealing with those toxic people and de-fanging their manipulations. Yes, non-interaction is a powerful strategy, but not one to be relied on exclusively, as then we remain vulnerable. The only reason for avoidance is nuisance, not fear or stress or inability to deal with negative bullshit, no matter how pleasantly disguised. When we're fully Aware of all their mechanisms, such machinations become impotent and we can manage them easily. Still a nuisance and a waste of time, but not a problem. A major distinction and a goal to strive for. We need to be empowered when it comes to these psychological bullies, otherwise when there's a potential encounter, like in a public social setting, they inevitably zoom in on those who fear or avoid them.
One of our most empowering powers is thus Sobriety. When one looks at a toxic person with full Sobriety, they see and recognise it, because they have to. Sober penetration is their Achilles heel and taps into their greatest fear: Exposure. Sobriety sees through all the obfuscation, layering, misdirection falsehoods, pretences, surface diversions and pretendings, cuttting through all that nonsense and "calling them out" without even saying a word. To toxic people, Sobriety is a Knife-of-Awareness, exposure always a feared danger. Preventing interaction can be accomplished by just having that air-of-recognition, or a single glance of knowing and warning. When combined with social-ruthlessness, and an obvious willingness to wield that maturity, such weaponised Sobriety is a threat and danger the toxic person under no circumstances can afford risking.
:) :D
L: - "A single glance of Knowing and warning." <3
S: - Yes. They are attuned to such subtleties, like any animal is, to what constitutes prey and what can prey on them. Awareness, sophisticated Aware Sober ruthless Awareness, to them, automatically makes that kind of Awareness a predator they cannot afford to tangle with. In their system of course, not ours. They think in animalistic terms, and to communicate, one has to use the Appropriate language, even if all we are silently communicating is "Bugger off with your crap! I see you coming and will expose you if I have to."
:D
Reflective Understanding
L: - The difficulty lies in remaining balanced... to calm the emotive reactionary self so as not to fuel the same fire from the opposite end.
S: - Yes. Very much so. The entire issue is one of a somewhat symbiotic relationship. Not the relationship with toxic people in themselves, but the relationship with Understanding toxic people. The more we understand them, the more we come to Understand ourselves, because they are gross exaggerations of what is also present in us in very small amounts.
The key in this particular focus of maintaining equanimity is to unhook from the need for approval and validation and other versions of external influence. For most toxic people, their underlying driving force is a lack of self-acceptance and their belief in the need for others' good opinion. Their toxicity comes from not receiving such approval and perceived validation, because of course they make little or no effort to not actually be crappy. The resulting resentment leads to the toxicity. There's more to their imbalance, but that's one of the key factors and a simplified version of what distorts them so.
Problem is, most people are still hooked to this need for good opinion from others, to varying degrees. Normal people are not obsessed with it as toxic people are, but, even small amounts makes us vulnerable to the pressures of negative opinion, and it is here the BMN gets their payoff for the toxicity: Power.
They thus can manipulate us with toxicity as long as we care about negative opinion and "looking bad" and appearing negative ourselves and so on.
Uncompromising Honesty
Here the power of ruthless Sobriety comes into full bearing. We first apply that ruthless sensibility to ourselves. Our Understanding of the toxic person provides us with an excellent tool for self-understanding and for becoming fully aware of the dangers of those small subtle instances of the underlying distorted mindset which are so debilitating. We see those negative consequences clearly in the toxic person, which can provide motivation and incentive for us to clean up our own acts. As well as that marvellous Gift: Perspective.
To see those subtle small nuanced instances of unwanted mindsets, beliefs, attitudes etc. within ourselves is difficult. But recognising them when we see the exaggerated versions is much easier and palatable, as we realise that what we may have been reluctant to deal with internally because it seemed like a huge deal, is not actually so when seen in the light of comparison. In this way that symbiotic relationship with Understanding the negative extremes of the toxic person is most helpful for obtaining our goal: Independence-of-Being. Thus a potent way to be free from being able to be affected by toxic people and negativity in general. This is our aim, that freedom-of-self, this is where our power comes from, and it's exactly the lack of Independence-of-Being which is the toxic person's fatal flaw. We cannot allow it to be ours.
Nobelia.org
#Awareness #BullshitManipulatorNarcissist #Manipulation #Perspective #Understanding #ToxicPeople #SuperiorityParadigmwww.SylSabastian.Blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/syl.sabastian (For Comments)
Enter your email address:
[image error] Subscribe in a reader
Understanding the Oxford Comma (And why its use is not really a debate.)
Usually we can get away with not using the Oxford as by *implication* when we write: something1, something2 and something3 it's implied we are listing three items. Typically this is so, hence not using the comma after something2, by *implication,* conveys our meaning of three items. But, what happens when something2 and something3 are a unit? As in macaroni and cheese, the dish.
If I find a note on the fridge:
“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, macaroni and cheese.”
Do I go to the groceries shelves for the macaroni and the dairy section and for the cheese, and thus buy three items, or to the deli and buy two? My decision would depend on me knowing if the writer typically uses the Oxford or not. If they usually do, I can be confident of going to the deli, where I can get the prepared dish of macaroni and cheese.
However, if they are in the habit of not using the Oxford, I have a problem. They could mean either, I have no way of knowing. This is the heart of the problem when not *consistently* using the Oxford. Yes, often, or even mostly, non-usage does not impact meaning, but, this non-usage sets up a pattern which then creates a problem when something2 and something3 are a unit, and not separate, but could also be. As it is with macaroni and cheese.
When we typically don't use the Oxford we are left with needing to work around this pattern when we *mean* to list only two items. In my example, a serial non-user of the Oxford would have to write the note in such a way as to specify they mean two items, and not their typical implied three. Like:
“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, and macaroni-and-cheese.”
Or:
“Please get the following from the supermarket: salad, and also macaroni and cheese.”
Whereas had they been in the habit of using the Oxford, we would know it's omission means two items. Simple. When writing books, there's of course time for this usage pattern to make a difference, especially if we write more than one. Further, authors *know* what they mean, but often do not account for readers coming to their expression of that knowing without having any idea whatsoever, and thus open to multiple interpretation. What seems obvious to us isn't always so to the reader. The less we leave matters open to multiple interpretations we don't intend, the better.
A little more example: I use, “Awareness, Discernment, and Understanding” regularly. Always with the Oxford. Here, “Discernment and Understanding are not a unit, at least not in my typical usage, so I don't strictly *need* the Oxford. But, I also regularly use, “Awareness, Attunement and Alignment.” here “Attunement and Alignment” IS typically a unit, and go together, are linked. Should I typically write: “Awareness, Discernment and Understanding” and then also, “Awareness, Attunement and Alignment.” How is my reader to know Discernment and understanding are not a linked unit?
The problem with using or not using the Oxford comes down to having a more Overview Perspective. Understanding that non-usage *can* be is often okay when it comes to conveying our meaning, but creates problem in the longer-term or in specific instances. It's a matter of Discernment and logic thus, of lol, Awareness, Discernment, and Understanding. These being so dear to my heart, this article is an example of their Application when it comes to practical matters :) :D
A few examples illustrating where the Oxford matters and is needed to make appropriate sense of the sentence:
“...experience in Individual, Marriage, and Family Counseling,...”
“...that course of actions, thoughts, and feelings she wants to...”
Can you provide more examples of where the Oxford is needed and makes a difference?
#OxfordComma #SerialComma #Discernment #Understanding #Writing
www.SylSabastian.Blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/syl.sabastian (For Comments)
Enter your email address:
[image error] Subscribe in a reader
DIVORCED PERSPECTIVE
Audio-pics vid with subtitles/CC: https://youtu.be/G2IWuOIE4FA
Podcast: https://is.gd/UmWIqm
"I used to spend much time with divorce lawyers, as you know. There was one who stuck with me, as a person. A fair and good man. A rarity among attorneys, especially divorce lawyers. He had a reputation of looking out for the interests of both parties. It made him highly sought after. I asked him how he came to determine what was fair. He said:
"The women always get screwed. It's just the nature of the situation, hard to avoid. And the guys always want to make a cheap pay-off. That's typically how they see it. How did I know it was fair? When the guy was uncomfortable. Not hurting or raging, but uncomfortable. Then I knew I was where it was good. It was always more than the figure the guy had in mind. When it comes to settlements, guys are stupidly cheap."
"You have a reputation for getting both parties to agree. How did you manage that?"
"First, I never took on raging couples. Those were about revenge and pain, not settlement. Only those who genuinely wanted to settle things. I would ask them, 'Is this about money or is it about settling things?' Once they understood that it was called a settlement for a reason, I could work with them. I would privately ask the women what they wanted. Not what they thought was their due. Just what they wanted to settle things. The women almost always knew what I meant. Settling things is about much much more than money."
"Money is merely the mechanism whereby the total issues are settled. It's closure. The women always wanted to move on. They understood settlement meant leaving things in such a way that there are no come-backs and implications. The women typically thought in longer-terms than the men."
"They inevitably asked for not nearly as much as a court would award them. Much much less. I would point it out, and they always said, 'Yes, I know. But I want to settle things, not have comebacks and hold-overs. No emotional obligations.' The guys always thought in accountant terms. All numbers and figures. And always trying to do some kind of math to come out with the least they can get away with."
"Yes, that has been my experience also. How did you get the men to be happy about a higher number?"
"I pointed out that a settlement is a Settlement. The point of it is to not leave anything that could come back to bite you. I would point out that there is no such thing as a private settlement, break up, or divorce. Just doesn't happen. It doesn't matter how discreet and private the woman is, in order for her to continue she at some point has to divulge the settlement with someone. Word gets out. It's just how it is. People put two and two together easily in matters like this. Because everyone at some point has been in the same boat or has close friends who have been."
"Divorces are the least private of all affairs. I pointed out to the men, that the smart thing to do, was to treat the settlement as an Investment. It was an investment in the future, in peace of mind, in no strings attached. But, I pointed out that was not the most important part of the investment. What they were really investing in was their reputation."
"Indeed that is so. Guys don't think things through like this. They tend to only look at the matter from their personal point of view. They never realise divorce is a communal affair."
"Yes. I would run through a typical scenario with the men. Then they understood. I said to them, 'Imagine your ex in a conversation with someone in the community. She's asking for advice on what to do with her life. She's moving on. She's asking for help in dealing with the money. Inevitably it goes something like this:
Wife: 'I have X Dollars available.'
Friend/advisor: 'Oh. That's all you got?'
Wife: 'It's what I asked for. I wanted things to be settled and to walk away free and clear. No baggage.'
"Oh, but, that's all you ended up with?"
"Of course the words and circumstances will vary, but the sentiments are invariably the same. The women ask for less because they want to be free. Asking for less buys them that freedom. They truly want settlement and closure. Women invest tremendously into relationships. They know there's no return on that investment once it's over. The last thing they thus want are ongoing emotional connections."
"Asking for less is thus a way to ensure that the settlement is NOT fair or in their favour. This is the price they are always happy to pay in order to be free from any further emotional connection. I made it my job to make sure they got more than the less they ask for. It's what they pay me for: fairness. The women also knew they were not entirely fair to themselves, but it was not something they could ask for themselves. It had to come from outside them. They always hoped it would come from their exes. Asking for less was a way of giving the men a chance at redemption."
"Insightful. Sadly guys seldom see this."
"Yes. My point to the men was that when the women get more than what they asked for they become inadvertent advocates for their exes. If anyone tries to say anything bad about the ex or the settlement, they will defend him, saying, 'But that was actually more than what I asked for, what I wanted. And it is good. And I am happy. I didn't even want more. I didn't want to be beholden in any way. I want to move on. But it was fair, so I am content.'"
"They want this. Because what they really want is to not have any room for the issue to be discussed. When they can say they got what they asked for, and even a bit more, it closes the discussion down and they don't have to go into the painful memories of the failure of their emotional investment. This is something men almost never comprehend, how much the women have emotionally invested."
"But they can comprehend the value this has to their reputations and to their business. It's thus that the settlement amount is an investment. I always tell them to think of it as an investment into ongoing positive PR. When looked at that way, it's a very very cheap investment. Especially when one looks at the damage that comes when a split is not dealt with well. When a guy walks away from the divorce deal happy, he inevitably ends up paying more for it all later. Much much more. And I remind them: It is a Settlement. The aim is to settle things. All things. And it's especially to settle the things that come afterward."
"What came before could not be settled. That's why there's a split. The settlement is always to settle what comes afterward. Once the men understood that, then they became sensible."
"Yes. Profound. Us men are not the most sensible of creatures. Yet we love to think we are. If we can get past being cheap... What you say is painfully personal to me. I learned the hard way. Now I would be happy to settle for many many more times than I did. I didn't think of the afterward at all. What an investment it would have been. Simply to invest in having no negative residue would have been worth ten times what I settled with."
"Glad to hear you say so. To give you closure, I'll add that to your bill this time."
Nobelia.org Self-Discovery Project
"I used to spend much time with divorce lawyers, as you know. There was one who stuck with me, as a person. A fair and good man. A rarity among attorneys, especially divorce lawyers. He had a reputation of looking out for the interests of both parties. It made him highly sought after. I asked him how he came to determine what was fair. He said:
"The women always get screwed. It's just the nature of the situation, hard to avoid. And the guys always want to make a cheap pay-off. That's typically how they see it. How did I know it was fair? When the guy was uncomfortable. Not hurting or raging, but uncomfortable. Then I knew I was where it was good. It was always more than the figure the guy had in mind. When it comes to settlements, guys are stupidly cheap."
"You have a reputation for getting both parties to agree. How did you manage that?"
"First, I never took on raging couples. Those were about revenge and pain, not settlement. Only those who genuinely wanted to settle things. I would ask them, 'Is this about money or is it about settling things?' Once they understood that it was called a settlement for a reason, I could work with them. I would privately ask the women what they wanted. Not what they thought was their due. Just what they wanted to settle things. The women almost always knew what I meant. Settling things is about much much more than money."
"Money is merely the mechanism whereby the total issues are settled. It's closure. The women always wanted to move on. They understood settlement meant leaving things in such a way that there are no come-backs and implications. The women typically thought in longer-terms than the men."
"They inevitably asked for not nearly as much as a court would award them. Much much less. I would point it out, and they always said, 'Yes, I know. But I want to settle things, not have comebacks and hold-overs. No emotional obligations.' The guys always thought in accountant terms. All numbers and figures. And always trying to do some kind of math to come out with the least they can get away with."
"Yes, that has been my experience also. How did you get the men to be happy about a higher number?"
"I pointed out that a settlement is a Settlement. The point of it is to not leave anything that could come back to bite you. I would point out that there is no such thing as a private settlement, break up, or divorce. Just doesn't happen. It doesn't matter how discreet and private the woman is, in order for her to continue she at some point has to divulge the settlement with someone. Word gets out. It's just how it is. People put two and two together easily in matters like this. Because everyone at some point has been in the same boat or has close friends who have been."
"Divorces are the least private of all affairs. I pointed out to the men, that the smart thing to do, was to treat the settlement as an Investment. It was an investment in the future, in peace of mind, in no strings attached. But, I pointed out that was not the most important part of the investment. What they were really investing in was their reputation."
"Indeed that is so. Guys don't think things through like this. They tend to only look at the matter from their personal point of view. They never realise divorce is a communal affair."
"Yes. I would run through a typical scenario with the men. Then they understood. I said to them, 'Imagine your ex in a conversation with someone in the community. She's asking for advice on what to do with her life. She's moving on. She's asking for help in dealing with the money. Inevitably it goes something like this:
Wife: 'I have X Dollars available.'
Friend/advisor: 'Oh. That's all you got?'
Wife: 'It's what I asked for. I wanted things to be settled and to walk away free and clear. No baggage.'
"Oh, but, that's all you ended up with?"
"Of course the words and circumstances will vary, but the sentiments are invariably the same. The women ask for less because they want to be free. Asking for less buys them that freedom. They truly want settlement and closure. Women invest tremendously into relationships. They know there's no return on that investment once it's over. The last thing they thus want are ongoing emotional connections."
"Asking for less is thus a way to ensure that the settlement is NOT fair or in their favour. This is the price they are always happy to pay in order to be free from any further emotional connection. I made it my job to make sure they got more than the less they ask for. It's what they pay me for: fairness. The women also knew they were not entirely fair to themselves, but it was not something they could ask for themselves. It had to come from outside them. They always hoped it would come from their exes. Asking for less was a way of giving the men a chance at redemption."
"Insightful. Sadly guys seldom see this."
"Yes. My point to the men was that when the women get more than what they asked for they become inadvertent advocates for their exes. If anyone tries to say anything bad about the ex or the settlement, they will defend him, saying, 'But that was actually more than what I asked for, what I wanted. And it is good. And I am happy. I didn't even want more. I didn't want to be beholden in any way. I want to move on. But it was fair, so I am content.'"
"They want this. Because what they really want is to not have any room for the issue to be discussed. When they can say they got what they asked for, and even a bit more, it closes the discussion down and they don't have to go into the painful memories of the failure of their emotional investment. This is something men almost never comprehend, how much the women have emotionally invested."
"But they can comprehend the value this has to their reputations and to their business. It's thus that the settlement amount is an investment. I always tell them to think of it as an investment into ongoing positive PR. When looked at that way, it's a very very cheap investment. Especially when one looks at the damage that comes when a split is not dealt with well. When a guy walks away from the divorce deal happy, he inevitably ends up paying more for it all later. Much much more. And I remind them: It is a Settlement. The aim is to settle things. All things. And it's especially to settle the things that come afterward."
"What came before could not be settled. That's why there's a split. The settlement is always to settle what comes afterward. Once the men understood that, then they became sensible."
"Yes. Profound. Us men are not the most sensible of creatures. Yet we love to think we are. If we can get past being cheap... What you say is painfully personal to me. I learned the hard way. Now I would be happy to settle for many many more times than I did. I didn't think of the afterward at all. What an investment it would have been. Simply to invest in having no negative residue would have been worth ten times what I settled with."
"Glad to hear you say so. To give you closure, I'll add that to your bill this time."
Nobelia.org Self-Discovery Project
#Divorce #DivorceSettlement #Relationships #BreakUp #Fairness #Closure #EmotionalSettlement #DivorceLawyers #MovingOn
