Adam also pointed out that I do compromise, and that my description
of my relationship is actually pretty close to what he was describing,
except he put more emphasis on the compromise part of it. It's true.
lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault (Exchange)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 10:21 AM
To: 'I Find Karma'
Subject: RE: [VOID] Shanked in the Conservahood plus Kurosawa's dream.
Adam, I think you may be absolutely right -- for your relationship.
Don't forget that every combination of two people is different.
I've found that a comfortable kind of relationship for me to be
in is one of moderated selfishness. If I want something, I ask
for it. If he wants something, he asks for it. If we want something
different, we negotiate.
That's of course a total oversimplification, but nonetheless an
illustration of another kind of working relationship besides the
one where you subsume all desires in favour of making the other
person happy. In fact, it drives me nuts when somebody tries to
do that to me. I hate it when my questions are turned around:
"What do you want to do tonight?"
"I don't know dear, what do YOU want to do?"
I wouldn't ask if I didn't want information. If I knew what
I wanted to do, I'd say it: e.g. "Let's rent 'Priscilla, Queen
of the Desert' tonight".
I'm usually an eNTj when I take meyers-briggs type personality
tests (tho sometimes I'm eSTj). As a warning: "When challenged,
the ENTJ may by reflex become argumentative." (this is
certainly true lately!)
http://www.keirsey.com/
http://www.rowan.edu/~cusumano/MBPerson.html
And my SO seems to be iNTp. What does that mean? I don't know,
I just have a feeling that the "right" relationship for two
people depends on what personality types they are, what
"scripts" they've learned from their upbringing, and what
compromises they're willing to make. The keirsey site has a
fun list of fictional relationships classified according to
the personality types of both individuals. Unfortunately, the
closest I can come to modelling my relationship with Eric is
me as Edward Rochester and Eric as Jane Eyre. Yikes!!!
If you haven't read Jane Eyre, it's ... ummm... unique. It's
hard to see what sweet little Jane would ever see in a monster
like Edward. There are so many tragedies the "united at last"
ending seems wrong, wrong wrong. Nonetheless the relationship
makes sense in a very twisted way, and the book is gripping
while you read it and leaves you thinking long afterward, so
I guess I would call it a great book.
If you consider that a recommendation, here's the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0553211404/o/forkrecommendedrA
Oh, and by the way I just bought "The Ultimate Resource (2)"
through FoRK recommendation of course. I also have a link to
much of the material on this book, online:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/BMGT/.Faculty/JSimon/Ultimate_Resou
rce/
I look forward to heated arguments with my liberal and
environmentalist friends! hee hee
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: I Find Karma [mailto:adam@cs.caltech.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
To: fork@xent.ics.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [VOID] Shanked in the Conservahood plus Kurosawa's dream.
I may regret this, but I'm taking Norquist's trollbait.
I wrote:
> > ...I think I am starting to understand how *A* woman thinks.
> > I just can't generalize it because all people are unique.
And then Norquist responded:
> Now THAT has to stop; if anyone is getting an DS (degree)
> ingeneralization, it would be you. It's peripheral to the case rather,
> but do generalize. It isn't even necessary to visualise in S7 to
> simply cover thought and interaction (i.e. more thought).
Okay, you're right, I can generalize. I may be wrong, but that's my
perogative.
You want to know the number one key to success in any relationship?
***Abandon your own needs***.
You want success, forget about yourself. Drop the selfishness. Don't
think about your needs at all. Your needs are unimportant. Concentrate
on the other person's needs, and how you can fulfill them.
Without intellectualizing this to death, the thing that really gets my
goat about people are our "me, me, me" attitudes. It's always "read my
story" or "I'm just not happy" or "pity me because my life isn't the way
I want it to be" or "listen to my point of view because I believe I am
most right" or "empathize with my situation because even though most
people would kill for the opportunities I have, I still am not happy" or
"hold me while I weep" or "drop whatever you're doing and attend to my
problems" etcetera ad nauseum.
I'm here to tell you: take all that sorry Ayn Rand selfishness and throw
it away, if you want to be successful in human relationships.
Selfishness simply has no place in them, and with every thought you have
of yourself you kill the relationship a little more.
This is not to say that you should be a doormat and let The Other walk
all over you and use you all of the time. The first time they do
something like that, give them a warning, and the second time they do
that, leave. Don't stand for selfishness in yourself, and only stand
for selfishness in others if you have enough altruistic energy stored up
that you can afford to squander it. (Sort of like the same kind of
philosophy you should have toward gambling: only gamble what you were
going to flush down the toilet in the first place, and only expend
energy on selfish people that you were going to flush down the energy
toilet in the first place.)
Selfish people can become more altruistic if enough energy is spent on
the conversion process. But the selfish person has to really want to
change, and the helper has to really want to help. And be very patient.
It's all about communication, compromise, and at times, sacrifice.
For example, Rohit was gettin' down on me because in
http://xent.ics.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/may98/0024.html
I was keeping it real by saying "I'll never have kids." In this case I
am putting my own needs -- the option of having children -- away and
consciously choosing to accommodate my Significant Other's need. That's
because Michelle is more important to me than any selfish need I might
have, such as saving my money to spend on myself or spending my time
solely on activities I want to do or having children whether she wants
to or not.
In an ideal relationship both parties should lose the selfishness as
much as possible -- and in all the matters where one or more parties
can't or won't drop it, then there is compromise. That's how you know
that you've found The One -- it has nothing to do with looks,
intelligence, personality, wealth, or sense of humor. It has everything
to do with the mutual ability to communicate, compromise, and at times,
sacrifice. But if you approach every relationship with the attitude
that you're losing the selfishness wherever possible, you'll have a much
better chance for ultimate success.
Now THERE'S a sweeping generalization that probably isn't nearly as true
as I'd like it to be. But an interesting thought nonetheless. It's not
"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" -- it's "do unto others
as they'd prefer to have done unto themselves."
By the way, I know that I promised that I wouldn't talk about The One
anymore. I lied.
...[rest deleted]