mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)

Standards documents generally make a big distinction between "should" and "shall" -- the first is a recommendation, the second is a requirement. It seems that I make a similar distinction.

When I use "should" or "shouldn't", as I did last night, it seems to be just a reference to an ideal or preferred state of things, without necessarily blaming myself for the present state. Essentially what [livejournal.com profile] judifilksign said in this comment.

All of your "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" are reasonable - if you take away the self-blame that comes along with them, and make them things to keep in mind about yourself.

If I'm being consistent, I'll use something like "ought to" to mark something that I will feel guilty about not doing or not being. I'm not always consistent, of course.

So, for example, "I shouldn't need so much sleep" is a parallel construction to "the car shouldn't be making that clunking noise" -- it implies that something is broken. "I ought to go to bed now" is more like "I ought to get the car looked at tomorrow", implying that something bad will happen if I don't.

mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)

It's been a while since I posted anything with a significant amount of River content; little things like life, the universe, and everything have been conspiring against me. I'm sorry to disappoint you again, but it seemed as though this was a good time for a sort of re-introduction and status report before we continue our journey.

The River posts started out as a journey of personal exploration, concentrating on mental states, emotions in particular, interpersonal communication, and relationships. Along the way they seem to have acquired a second theme of advice, primarily for geeks like me and people in relationships with geeks. (I'll get into definitions in a little while.) How this geeky old bear found himself in the role of slightly bemused relationship counselor is a longish story that has yet to be told in full, but you'll find bits of it in the archives if you're curious.

There seem to be three main types of River posts. There are, of course, general posts that have a brief mention of a River-related topic -- those usually just get the tag. There are the ones that report on, and usually analyze, a specific incident or event from a riparian point of view -- often these have the phrase "on the River" in their title. And finally there are the more carefully-considered posts, of the sort [livejournal.com profile] cflute calls "The Mandelbear waxes philosophical", which usually have titles that start with the "River:" keyword.

At any given time I may have a half-dozen or so posts in various stages of writing, and another dozen in the form of a title and a few notes. They often stay in this state for months, until I either get tired of beating on them, or they get triggered by some event, usually on my friends list, that makes them suddenly relevant.

Definitions:

Although there are plenty of terms I use in a somewhat non-standard sense here on the River, the only two I want to highlight here are geek and human. I believe I first started using the pair of them in a technical sense in a post titled Humans are from Earth, geeks are from Saturn.

Geek
This is intended as a humorously self-deprecating, fairly general term that covers anyone who, like me, has trouble relating to and getting along with "normal" people. It covers a fairly wide range, including aspies, people with adult ADD, loners, and in some aspects people who are simply terribly shy. Geeks often have an easier time relating to computers than to people; some of my earlier posts have mentioned "hackers" in this connection.
Human
This is meant as a less disparaging term for "normal" people than things like "neurotypical", which is common in the Aspie community.

I'll note immediately that I'm well aware that many people -- probably including most of my readers, fall somewhere in between the two categories, or have aspects of one or the other in different situations.

Sub-tags:

Here are the tags commonly used for River subtopics. This set changes over time, and posts will occasionally have tags that are used more widely.

c9n
Calibration -- getting or soliciting feedback or corrections (outside of LJ -- inside LJ I'd use "query"). You may have met the practice of using a number to stand for the number of omitted letters in "i18n", the common abbreviation for "internationalization".
comm
Communication
def
Definitions. Often also have "Defining my terms:" in the title.
human
The whole "being human" thing (usually in the context of my abject failure at it).
meta
A post about posting. This post, for example.
np
N-person relationships (where n>2). The definition of np-complete and np-hard are left as an exercise for the reader.
psa
Public Service Announcement. Something I want people to know about me.
psych
Psychology, including mental states, psychopharmacology, and so on.
query
Questions of the readership, often for calibration purposes.
rel
Relationship

Books?

The River seems to have spawned some related writing projects. The first, thought of a couple of months ago and introduced in a post titled The River: it's not just a tag anymore, was the comparatively straightforward idea of turning the first year's worth of posts and some selected comments into a book, A Year on the River. It will require some serious editing, of course.

The second, and more recent (as in just this week), is the idea of writing a pair of somewhat more organized self-help books, tentatively titled Relating to Humans -- A Manual for Geeks and Relating to Geeks -- A Manual Mostly for Humans. I envision them being printed back-to-back, like one of the old Ace Doubles. Anybody else remember those? It would make sense because, as I've noted above, many people fall somewhere in the middle. And, of course, because geeks have most of the same problems relating to other geeks that humans do.

(The initial phrase, currently "Relating to", is up for grabs; additional possibilities include "Living with" and "The Care and Feeding of".)

Naturally, both of these projects will start out as wiki-like websites, so that I can get some help -- I'll need it.

mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)

My recent post defining "openness" pulled in a surprising number of comments -- thank you. Thanks in particular to [livejournal.com profile] 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...

Experience

2008-05-09 08:44 am
mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)

A recent conversation made me wonder just how many "relationships" (by some definition) I've had over the course of my life, and how many ended in "breakups" as opposed to just quietly drifting apart (or, in one case, staying together for over three decades).

So let's define a "relationship" as something lasting more than a month, with some non-trivial level of romantic involvement ("love" by some definition), mutual physical attraction and physical contact. Define "breakup" as an abrupt, major decrease in the closeness of the relationship.

The answers turn out to be seven and one.

The corresponding numbers for Colleen, who is 5 years younger than me, are four and zero.

mdlbear: blue fractal bear with text "since 2002" (Default)

It occurs to me that, in a series of posts about mental states and relationships, I probably ought to define my terms. It's only fair, especially in an area where peoples' personal definitions are both vitally important to them and in some cases appear to have very little overlap.

Since this is an exercise in information sharing, it seems only right to start off with my definition for openness.

Openness:

Openness is, fundamentally, willingness to share information. In both directions. One might call the receiving direction "open-mindedness", though that's probably only part of it; I can't think of a good word for the sending direction. Anyone?

So let's take the sending direction first. Openness, in that direction, is a willingness to share information about yourself with others. There are degrees, of course, both in who one shares with and how -- and exactly what -- much one is willing to share. Some people share their most intimate feelings only with their closes friends; others (like me) "publish and be damned" almost everything on the open web.

In the other direction, openness is most of all a willingness to listen. It implies both interest in what the other person is saying, and (where applicable) a willingness to consider new information and possibly change one's own mind.

There's a lot of similarity between openness in relationships and in software; a good open-source software project not only shares its code freely, but accepts bug reports and patches for that code. It's not exact; there is, unfortunately, no revision-control system for relationships.

Most of the time I'm pretty far out on the openness side of the scale, by my own measure. There's very little about my own emotional life that I wouldn't publish here in my LJ, or put into a song. There have been a couple of times when I've suddenly thought "did I just say that to the entire damned Internet?" and friends-locked a post, but it feels wrong when I do it. As if there was something I needed to hide.

Sometimes I do need to hide things, though. I won't share anything I understand to have been told to me in confidence, and I won't share anything I understand will hurt someone else or reveal information they don't regard as private. The key word here is understand -- I'm all too likely to default to my own standards of openness; feel free to whap me with a cluestick if I blunder and cross one of your boundaries.

I've run across other peoples' boundaries enough lately that I'm setting up a private journal that's just for myself, finally. I haven't had a private journal in nearly four decades, but I have to write about things if I expect to understand them, and I need to be open with myself even if I can't necessarily share those particular thoughts with anyone else. It still feels wrong.

So, just as a reminder: this is my definition. You can tell me how it differs from your definition -- I really hope you do, in fact, since one of the motivations for this is to find out how my use of language differs from everyone else's -- and I'll be glad if you point out obvious inconsistencies or mistakes, or places where I could be more precise. You don't get to tell me that my definition is wrong. (edit 5/4) You can tell me why it doesn't really appear to be the definition I'm actually using. And you can tell me why you think I should be using a different one.

Similarly, you can tell me where you are on the scale, but you don't get to tell me I'm in the wrong place.

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated 2026-01-26 09:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios