I don't have a square to spare, aka Indecent Behavior

[sadavis00]

So, I am at the laundry, and I need to write down an idea, so I smile and ask an 45-50 y.o lady if I can use her pen, she asks me why, I tell her so that I can take down a note, and she tersely says no! The pen is just lying there on the table, and she is just waiting for her laundry...

Now, I agree that she has a right to say no, but isn't it just incredibly stupid to say no in this case? I can understand if I looked diseased, but even then, I myself would not have said no, because I am a decent guy. I know certain people get "assertiveness" training, and learn to "say no" when their guts tell them to say no, but I am starting to wonder if assertiveness training is pushing people to follow their instinctual narrow self-interest, at the expense of certain unspoken rules of unselfish social behavior, with the result that it is creating, or unmasking selfish people, taking some decency (however superficial) out of daily life.

[Shamou]

sadavis00! I am not saying that what the lady did was right but some people will judge you by associating you with your peer group... and react to this as if you were displaying the worst behavior of that peer group... it probably has absolutely nothing to do with who you are but what you represent to that person...

However my question to you is, "Why did it bother you so much...???" Personally I would have "mentally" said... "Well, if you don't want to lend my your pen... take it and shove it..." and left it at that...

You know, God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence... so, just be glad that you are not as dumb as she is...

Have a nice day...

PS. I'll bet that you never forgot what you wanted to write down...

.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Maybe she had a previous bad experience where she let someone borrow a pen and it never came back. Do not judge someone until you have walked a mile in their penless shoes.

[MartialDev]

You probably smiled wrong.

[sadavis00]

Originally Posted by MartialDev

You probably smiled wrong.

I smile fine! See look

Anyways, I rationalized it to myself, arguing that other people may not share my sense of goodness, may have adopted different values, or may rely too much on primal emotions (prejudice, fear etc.). Does not mean they are stupid, immoral or worse as humans than I am. But I do believe that whatever cocktail of beliefs and emotions they use to live their lives, it is a volatile cocktail, and it takes serious effort that it does not blow up in their face. In my case, the woman refused to help when asked a very small favor by an very safe looking person, this can only be the case in two cases:

1) She is paranoid of strangers who approach her, or has no sense of altruism, in either case I don't need feel wronged, these are psychological problems, and hence these people cannot be expected to perform as normal people.

2) She is an otherwise normal person, but holds some prejudiced emotions, or is selfish and is extremely protective of her property, at the expense of her altruism.
In this case, her beliefs may be incongruent. Say, she asked a person in the past to borrow a pen. If while asking for the pen, she even had a slight expectation that a pen should be given to her simply because she is a person, then she will have been incongruent to refuse me her pen. This is because to refuse me her pen, despite she herself expecting a pen, would mean that she holds the conviction that while it is right to expect a act of simple altruism simply because one is a person , she is not bound by this moral regarding her own simple acts of altruism. Now, this may mean she considers me "not a person", which is a view that is very hard to maintain, because I am very obviously a person. Sustaining a belief in dehumanization is very difficult in today's society, especially given the societal belief in an essential equality of all people. Now, the other possibility is that she considers herself a "higher person" than all other persons, such that while she herself has a right to expect simple acts of altruism from others (just like other persons), she alone has a special right to deny others an expectation of simple altruism from her, (she can base her altruism on the worth of regular persons). Belief in herself as a "higher person" is a very volatile belief, I don't see how a person can maintain this belief indefinitely without external validation, but I do think it can be maintained with a lot of self-effort, and that is her burden.

Now, she may not have these views. Instead, she may simply have been "overwhelmed" by her emotion (such as misplaced revenge against someone else who wronged her), so that so could not do the right thing. If that is the case, then she will feel bad in some sense, which is again her burden.

[carenkh]

Lots of folks have been told to NEVER give strangers anything, 'cause they'll kidnap and rob you, then kill you, burying your parts in shady undisclosed locations. I've learned not to listen to that kinda b.s. - my kids even run around my neighborhood freely and play with their friends. Outside! Without me holding their hands! BUT a lot of people live in that kind of fear of strangers. There are (rare) stories of people believing that they're doing good, helping someone on the side of the road, for example, and they do get mugged instead, and those just re-confirm those fears. She may have been acting from that "never give anything to strangers" mentality.

Then again... unless you run into her again and ask, it's likely you'll never know. I wouldn't spend too much more time contemplating - I don't think it's indicative or symbolic of any larger truth. Sometimes a pen is just a pen.

[Angela]

So, you know that story about the guy at a stoplight? The light turns green, and the car in front of him doesn't move, he's blocked in, so he honks his horn irritably. He watches as the driver starts rummaging around the seat behind her. "MOVE! GO! You IDIOT!" The woman gets out of her car, and opens her back door. At this point, the guy is just about apoplectic with rage, so he gets out of his own car and storms up to give the woman a piece of his mind. She gratefully looks up at him, thinking he's coming to help her, because her baby, who had been strapped in his car seat, is choking, and she's desperately trying to save the life of her child.

There's no way for you to know everything that's going on with another human being who is irritating you. Who knows what she's been through? You might want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and remind yourself that everybody could have a baby in their backseat, in a manner of speaking.

[sadavis00]

Originally Posted by Angela

There's no way for you to know everything that's going on with another human being who is irritating you. Who knows what she's been through? You might want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and remind yourself that everybody could have a baby in their backseat, in a manner of speaking.

You are suggesting masking one feeling with another. Namely, mask the feeling of righteous anger with sympathy. If I knew something about her "having a baby in the backseat", or if I knew she had psychological problems, of course I will feel some sympathy. But unless I know that, the doubt will continue to linger that this was some form of personal attack. I can delude myself into imagining something else, but I rarely succeed in modifying my perception of reality (though my conception of reality is easier to modify). No, I would rather acknowledge my anger, find the generalization underlying the specific event that made me angry, and find a solution, either conceptual, real or a combination, that is in line with what I consider to be good.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by sadavis00

You are suggesting masking one feeling with another. Namely, mask the feeling of righteous anger with sympathy.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. You are welcome to your righteous anger, or any other emotion you want to feel. I'm not even suggesting you feel sympathy. In fact, I'm way in favor or acknowledging and accepting what you're feeling so that you're free to act powerfully in the face of it, whether you choose to keep it or transform it.

What I'm suggesting is: there is more going on in people than meets the eye, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Opening yourself up to the possibility that you are not aware of all the things that might be influencing a person gives you a broader scope and more freedom for powerful action. If you make judgements about them, you only limit your own self-knowledge and your ability to connect.

Kind of like you did when you presumed to tell me what it is I'm suggesting, without checking it out with me first!

Your righteous anger (and all your other emotions) have nothing to do with the lady in the laundromat. They are all yours. If the solution you find requires other people to change, then you're powerless.

[sadavis00]

"What I'm suggesting is: there is more going on in people than meets the eye, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Opening yourself up to the possibility that you are not aware of all the things that might be influencing a person gives you a broader scope and more freedom for powerful action. If you make judgements about them, you only limit your own self-knowledge and your ability to connect."

I agree that there may be more than meets the eye, I don't see how simply acknowledging this gives me more "freedom for powerful action". What does give me "freedom for powerful action" is by keeping perception and reason free to inquire so I can make the best judgments I can. I don't see how I can have any conviction to take "powerful action" if I do not make any judgments. Also, when my judgment cannot be considered final, because of incomplete information, I would rather give myself the benefit of the doubt, so I can have at least some conviction to take action, rather than keep seething in anger. If subsequently my judgment is proven wrong, I have nothing to feel guilty about, atleast I tried to understand, even if I understood wrong.


"Kind of like you did when you presumed to tell me what it is I'm suggesting, without checking it out with me first! "

Sorry! I probably did more of this in this post

"Your righteous anger (and all your other emotions) have nothing to do with the lady in the laundromat. They are all yours. If the solution you find requires other people to change, then you're powerless."

I disagree. My emotions have something to do with the lady in the laundromat. It also has something to do with me. I wasn't angry before going into the laundromat, I was angry coming out of it. It has something to do with me in the sense that I hold an belief and expectation of simple altruism as a function of a good person, which was dashed. My anger was directed at the lady, anger having its basis in my beliefs. I don't agree I am powerless to change people, if it means changing their superficial behavior (though I may be powerless to change their inner beliefs). I think it can be achieved with action, for example, in my case I could have expressed my anger to the lady (it may have had unintended effects, but it also may have caused her to change her behavior). Any case, I am generally not a man of action, so I try to find a concept which will empower me. Like my little theory in the above post, which implies that, even if I don't do anything, the lady will be burdened by her own bad behavior.

[UHF]

The fact that she asks why and gets a reasonable and obvious answer before saying no is the odd thing here. If you had said 'to scratch my bum' then ok.

I think your over analysing it. Some people are just a few nuts short of a Dundee cake.

[Angela]

Good morning, sadavis00. When you make a judgement ("She's selfish, narrowly self-interested, and indecent" or "you're suggesting I mask my real emotions") you cut off all other possibilities for yourself. Any action you take
based on a judgement will be limited and stingy; your connection with others is killed off, and you kill off the freedom within yourself of acting on possibilities that might work better. Possibilities and action that might generate feelings that feel good for both you and the person you're judging.

If you evaluate as opposed to judging ("I don't like the way she responded to my request to borrow a pen") then you're taking responsibility and you're free to take all kinds of powerful action. You can look at yourself and see why it makes you angry, and perhaps get an insight into anger in all your relationships. Or you could look her in the eyes, express gratitude anyway, (which might make a difference in her attitude), and practice making connection despite circumstances that trouble you. Or you could say, thanks, walk away, get a pen elsewhere and forget about it. Or a million other possible powerful actions.

If you go through life getting angry every time your expectations get dashed, then you're not free to experience anything else: like surprise, delight, challenge, adventure, etc. In other words, you're limited.