(re)Defining my terms: open, transparent, receptive

[mdlbear]

My recent post defining "openness" pulled in a surprising number of comments -- thank you. Thanks in particular to filkferengi's suggestion of "transparency" for the sending side of openness. I realized a few days later that "receptiveness" is a better word than "open-mindedness" for the receiving side.

So, just to get down to the roots and make the definitions explicit...

One is transparent when one is sharing information about oneself.

One is receptive when one is taking in and taking into account information about somebody else.

 

So where does this leave "openness"? Is it merely transparecy plus receptiveness? I think not -- I think there's a whole other aspect of it that I hadn't considered last time. (See how language affects thought? Now that I have good words for the two concepts I was trying to get at downwhen, I can pull them out and consider the remainder.) I think it's captured best in phrases of the form "open to new {ideas, possibilities, relationships}". It's less about the information than about one's relationship to that information. As we will see, this will allow us to capture the meaning of such things as an "open relationship".

So...

One is open to new information, relationships, possibilities, etc. when one is not merely receptive in those areas but ready to be receptive in them. Not necessarily actively seeking out opportunities to be receptive, but willing to persue them if they should come along.

Similarly, one is open about an area when one is ready to be transparent about that area when the occasion calls for it. (Note that I originally had "willing" instead of "ready" in these two definitions, but I think that "ready" better expresses the idea of active preparedness that I'm looking for.

It's worth noting that any kind of relationship requires a significant amount of both receptivity and transparency -- one has to be ready for both in order to be "open" in the more general sense.

A relationship is open when both parties in that relationship -- by extension all parties where applicable -- are open to new relationships. Similarly, a group is open when it is open to new members. Note that there may be -- and usually are -- quite restrictive conditions on this kind of openness.

 

As usual, comments are welcome. What are your definitions? Do mine seem to work, or am I still missing something or getting something wrong? Inquiring minds...

Comments

[obsessivewoman.livejournal.com]

As an aside - I have been struggling with the amount of personal information to be transparent about. In answering questions, I often give more information than needed and a majority of mundanes find this really rude or uncomfortable. I was ridiculed at my first big job because of this, when we'd gone out for drinks and I responded to a personal question with personal information. Since then I've learned that there are many situations where one should not be transparent for self preservation.

Pretty much, if that other person (receptive or not) is an acquaintance (coworker or someone I only see only occasionally or only in the confines of one situation - conventions), they have not yet earned the right for me to be transparent. The hard part is that this is true even if the person is a close friend of someone I trust and/or love. It takes mutual baby steps of disclosure over a period of time to build trust.

[obsessivewoman.livejournal.com]

Yes, your terms are good, just didn't want to leave out the trust issue.:)

[mdlbear]

Yeah; I'm learning that, too. Fortunately, most people don't ask personal questions unless they expect answers. There are some things I'm learning to friends-lock, too, but it still seems odd to me.

[hsifyppah.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the missing piece you are looking for is interest - openness is when both parties are actively interested in open exchange. Maybe the difference between an open door and an open door with a neon OPEN sign above it. :)

[mdlbear]

Yeah; I originally had "actively interested" in my definition instead of "ready". It has a place in the definition of "receptive" as well.

"Open exchange" is different from the other meanings I have because it's active and reciprocal, rather than merely a possibility. The difference between an open door, and standing in the doorway talking. Will update later when I have time.

Some thoughts on openness, readiness, trust, willingness, interest

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

As someone who’s been open, at least at conventions, pagan gatherings, and the like, about stuff like being pagan, and bi, and polyamorous (when the topic comes up, but that includes stuff like being on panels at cons), I’d say that there’s also an element of what the listener(s) are ready to hear you be open about. In these contexts, those things don’t shock anyone. They aren’t subjects of gossip because there’s lots of things that are more interesting/shocking/new to talk about. When my new partner was obviously transgender, I did hear that that was gossiped about, but it didn’t lose me any friends. I imagine that the results would be very different at work, but then, religion and sex aren’t topics that are particularly pertinent to work, and I’ve noted when they do come up with people being social, it tends to be people who are empathizing with each other, taking a break from the challenges of work, and not interested in the challenge of thinking about things that are different. So one aspect of this discussion is about the listener’s readiness to listen to a particular topic, something that the speaker has to gauge (or guess) before they start talking. And you have to balance the question, “What close friendships will never form if I don’t share?” with the question, “What distant friendships (or working relationships) will lose if I DO share?” It says a lot about me that I have very consciously used talking about growing purple tomatoes & purple green beans as a defense mechanism—if talking about those things weirds someone out, then talking about most other things about myself is a bad idea…

Openness and readiness, willingness, etc. I will note that people may be willing to talk about or do something, but not really know if they are ready until they try. So I would call them open if they're willing to try, at least most of the time. (There can be a really awkward fuzzy place where someone says they're open, but their attitude and behavior and reactions are really quite definitely not.)

Also, readiness can have many different facets. One being emotionally ready for (even longing/needing) a new relationship doesn’t necessarily mean one has time, or resources, or that the other people & aspects of one’s life are ready.

I go back and forth on the openness with everyone thing...so much social progress is made possible by having people know stuff like that there are pagans in their midst, and they're not serial killers or anything. I remember a time when people used to call friends in distant cities and make the agreement, "I'll march in your Gay Pride Parade if you'll march in mine" so they could go publicly stand up for what's right without risking their jobs or exposing their families to hate crimes.

Open with who and when and about what is far too often, for my tastes, a matter of weighing risks, instead of a matter of hoping for new friends.

Re: Some thoughts on openness, readiness, trust, willingness, interest

[mdlbear]

Indeed. Unfortunately the risk aspect often does need saying -- and taking into account -- these days. I have some coworkers already reading my LJ, and others who would surprise me greatly if they told me they had. Fortunately it's a very tolerant, eclectic, and intelligent group. (Everything from Mormons and conservative Christians to pagans, and both a Turk and an Armenian. Political discussions are occasionally interesting. Even polite religious discussions aren't unknown. I love my company.)

As for not knowing until they try... That goes for me, too. Definitely. I've been expanding my boundaries in several directions recently; sometimes I discover the hard way just how far I can push them.