(no subject)

[wispfox]

The most damaging thing I learned while growing up was this:

"Don't talk about things that are very important to you, especially if the topic is a difficult one. It'll be twisted around as your fault, changed to be about the other person and not you, or twisted so that you're not sure if it really happened the way you remember. The more important the subject, the stronger the emotional attachment, the worse the reaction. Keep quiet. It's safer."

Those who have been reading me a while may notice something really interesting about this. I need to talk about things. _Especially_ when they are difficult for me. Especially with people I'm close to. And... my natural state is to be trusting, not wary. Yes, it's safer to not be as trusting as I was as a child. But... being taught by actions to go in the complete opposite direction isn't helpful, and makes it just as difficult to find a good balance point.

It's also not helpful to have been taught to doubt one's perceptions, because how, then, does one know who to trust? At least I've pretty much managed to get beyond that - I trust my perceptions now, mostly. (I don't think I _want_ to trust them completely - because then I might start buying into the belief that only my perceptions are accurate, no one else's. And that's just bad...)

To have been taught something so completely against who I am, regardless of the fact that it was not an intentional lesson, has been something I've been struggling to work through ever since. I _know_ it ties into my my reduced, but still existing, difficulty with forcing myself to talk about things when I am afraid of the reaction. I suspect it ties into my expectation for people to whom I have strong emotional ties to leave and/or hurt me. Leaving me, BTW, _is_ hurting me, for people I am close to - possibly the worst anyone can hurt me and still have me wanting them in my life. Even if there are good reasons. Reasons will help, though, if I can understand and agree with them.

Part of this is, almost certainly, the fact that I was a _very_ sensitive, open child.

And I continue to fight my demons...

Comments

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I have a different take on trust than most people. Most people's approach to trust involves not getting hurt, at all, ever, or exposing one to the risk of getting hurt. The idea is that one should be wary of people until they earn trust. This doesn't 100% prevent getting hurt, but it does take steps aimed at that.

I think I possibly place less negative value on getting hurt, and more positive value on being trusting. I will generally trust people until they give me a reason to believe I shouldn't. Broken trust can be hard to regain, though. So maybe I just start with a default position of trusting people and then have a lot of inertia after that.

This does mean that I get hurt now and then -- every time I'm wrong, in fact. I think that I like being a trusting person more than I dislike getting hurt.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

I think that I like being a trusting person more than I dislike getting hurt.

I _know_ that I do. Otherwise, I would trust no one. Ever. And that's just... not me.

I don't think being a trusting person is a bad thing, as long as it's sanely trusting, and not putting myself into stupid amounts of danger.

When I was a kid, I _did_ trust to the point of putting myself into danger, because I had basically no common sense.

I still don't, but it's possible for me to learn things that others might term common sense by being told, or sufficient amounts of life beating me upside the head with a clue stick.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know what you mean. Another thing I find is always remembering to multiply the likelihood of something by the severity or level of benefit of that thing. So when thinking about doing something, you don't think, "Well, the likelihood of something bad happening is low," and leave it at that. You think, "Well, the likelihood of something bad happening is low, but when multiplied by the outcome, it's still a pretty large negative valuation." Alternately, for, say, some really minor thoughtful act, "The likelihood that they'll even notice is very low, but benefit if they would is very, very high, in terms of their happiness, leading to a reasonably good valuation anyway." Then you can weigh the goods and the bads in some sort of single-unit-of-scale manner.

[ommango.livejournal.com]

I can relate to the first statement about how difficult it is to talk about what hurts. I still have that trouble with my family, and make excuses for them when they hurt me out of habit, instead of telling them. Midwestern people don't like straight forwardness and confrontation or even conflict so much goes under rug swepted. There it festers. I am much better with friends in being able to tell them when something hurts, where my boundaries are, what works and what doesn't work for me. Processing and vocalizing and talking stuff out is very healing and I am still learning how. I have huge issues with being heard and am learning to be gentler with people when they don't hear me, and somehow that is tied up to this.

The original statement you made makes me think about how family secrets are created and kept for years because they are easier not to talk about.

I really appreciate reading your processing throughout the day, with your honesty, and I very much can relate to this as well as singing to oneself. I have stopped because my son doesn't like it, but he is starting to do it, so we all are doing it now and enjoying it.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

*nods* That kind of analysis is something I do automatically, so I tend to not think about it. But, yes - useful. Also, I _don't_ tend to put much forethought into positive things I might do; I just do them, unless I'm pretty sure that the person in question won't appreciate them.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that I often do for positive things either, but when I first typed the comment, I included several negative examples and found myself trying to construct a positive one. :)