|
LafayetteLady -> RE: Need Adivice ASAP (6/4/2013 10:47:16 PM)
|
NV, Forgive the not quoting, but our back and forth has gotten a bit long, lol. I would have PMed you, but I think it might be of value for people to see two things. One that there is value to both approaches, as well as increased value to both approaches being part of the answers to OPs and: two, that even when two people have very different approaches, it doesn't mean they dislike each other or don't respect the other's approach.
The bolded part. Well, it is MY fact, so not misrepresentative. While there was a time that my memory was like that of an elephant, it has sadly faded a bit of late, and it can be difficult sometimes for me to even remember what day it is!
Another thing that I have found changing as I have gotten older and developed some more health issues: I sometimes forget to be more specific so as not to confuse a "general" with a more "specific." I honestly don't mind having to clarify, but it pisses me off that I managed to not communicate it clearly the first time. I tend to be the most harsh and unforgiving with myself, although I have gotten better at forgiving myself for mistakes that I never used to make. I know that sounds like I was a bit overcome with being a perfectionist, and in a way I was. But in the legal arena, perfection and clarity are the difference between winning a motion/case and losing. I worked hard to be nearly perfect at my ability to do that, as well as being astoundingly clear. Having left the field in 2008 after I was injured, some of that has fallen by the wayside, and I don't particularly like that fact. Of course, I had also worked hard at the art of brevity and well....I think we can agree that shit fell away completely, lol.
So, I didn't mind clarifying, and yes I was talking about the over kill of being analytical. I'm actually glad we agree that can be a problem. I used women as the example, because although your ex-husband may have been that way, it seems to be a problem more common to women. Nothing is absolute.
I am aware that I do have a tendency towards a rigid world view. But only for some things. Other things I see as quite fluid. Here is not the place to explain why I hold those things rigid, but I can promise you that it makes sense, lol.
While I will NEVER read one of those self-help books as I find them clawingly annoying, I do believe there is a right and wrong way to read them. Yours is the right way. The whole "sky is pink" is a good analogy of why. Problem is that most of the people I have personally come across tend to be those who will start believing the sky is pink because the book said so. That is, of course until the next book that tells them the sky is purple.
I think you being an analyst might have something to do with it. While on these boards, we have an uncommonly high number of people who have a strong grasp of psychology and healthy self reflection (as well as a good number who only think they do), the typical person reading those books are searching for answers that quite simply, they aren't going to find in a book. Much like adoptees who say they need to find biological parents because there was always this "hole" in their life. Not knowing your biologicals isn't the reason for the hole. Certainly, there is a hole, but this information isn't the reason why and it won't solve the problem of the hole existing. To make sure we are clear on who I am talking about, it is the same ethnicity, adopted at birth having never lived/known biological parents. Being an adoptee myself, I do have a deeper understanding of those issues that the average person.
The point being that some people can use those books and apply the concepts to their reality, but many try to bend their reality to fit the books, always searching, but because they aren't looking in the right places, they will always keep searching. In other words, some people simply shouldn't be searching on their own, they should instead find a qualified professional to guide them down the path.
The "blunt truth" aspect. For the record, I actually didn't really use the "tough love" approach on this OP, although some could say I was blunt. I was in no way snarky until the comment about Kana. I was snarky to the "white knight" who rode in to try to defend the OP's comment about Kana. But frankly, he was looking at the world like a 12 year old boy and didn't have a firm grasp on how the real world works.
Here's the thing with the "who" to use the tough love/harsh/blunt truth with. Like I said, I was not really any of those things in my initial post to the OP. However, we do have posters who come here with the same problem over and over. So while they aren't close to us personally, they are still coming to "us" repeatedly with the same problem. So, being blunt/harsh with them is necessary. There are some people who have come to me for help that needed ongoing for the same problem for YEARS. There didn't seem to be an ability to learn from their mistakes or to grasp what they were doing, or how they were doing it was wrong (in the sense that it was never going to get them the results they sought). I am currently helping one woman who herself is the most damaging thing to her case. She reads up on statutes/rules/ethics, but doesn't fully understand them. A common thing with the people who come to me. It can be very difficult to explain they simply don't understand what they are reading without them thinking they are being called stupid.
I'm sure you have clients that are this same way. Because they are clients, you don't have the ability to "escape" hearing it over and over, nor do you have the ability to, out of frustration, smack them upside the head and (in your best Olympia Dukakis in Moonstruck voice) say, "snap out of it!" While I didn't work as a counselor, I was still in the same type of position, hearing it over and over and being limited at how I could respond. Unlike you, and this isn't meant as an insult to you, that "listening" technique has kind of stuck. Like I have a tattoo on my forehead that only people with the craziest problems can read, that says, "talk to me about your insane shit, I'm here to help." And I do help. To the best of my ability, an ability which ain't too shabby. "Turning off" from the job was something I only partially learned how to do. On the other side of that coin, is that I truly get a great deal of personal satisfaction from what I do, previously as a professional, now as a volunteer. How many of us are lucky enough to have that?
I do read "into" things a person posts asking for help/advice and make an educated estimation of what type of response will be most helpful, warm, fuzzy, blunt, or harshly slapping them with the reality stick. That middle one is most common, no coddling, no snark, but no bullshit. The last tends to come after they try to excuse the problem the asked for help with every which way they can (why the hell ask then? THWACK with the reality stick, lol).
So once again, I have managed to forget how useful brevity is, lol. Anyway, I don't think our thought process is all that different, even though our approach seems to be. I agree, neither is wrong, just different. Both have their place and both are beneficial.
I have enjoyed the dialogue as well. And the snark that wasn't a snark? Meh, I wasn't insulted and I can deal with some back and forth snark with the "right" people, lol. (hint: You are in the "right" category). I do think, however, if you want to discuss further (which would be great), we should do it off this thread. We have managed to somewhat derail enough here, I think.
ETA: Christ on a cracker! I really need to relearn the art of brevity.
|
|
|
|
