I had always fancied myself being one, till I decided that it caused more problems than it resolved. Then I firmly got out of the business of giving advice except when asked, when I would say 'what I would do is...' to make it clear that it's only my opinion.
Over the years though, I've apparently become known for having a cool head and making sensible decisions, so people sometimes as me for opinions. And some people ask me for opinions all the time. In this latter category falls the friend who I unwittingly recruited into my organization. I'm guessing her work is still ok, so I don't need to feel guilty, but it sometimes causes more work for me :)
She's in a very different position in life - she has 2 children who are 5 and 2, she hasn't worked full-time in a few years and wanted to re-join the full time work force, though she was doing useful part-time work. So she did, but has throughout been conflicted about her children. The older one had a tough time because at the time when she chose to go back to work, her husband took a job in another city (after having been home for 8 months). That got resolved eventually, with the husband returning to this city with a new job. Now, her younger child is ill. And for some reason, she thought I might have suggestions about what she could possibly do. 'What if the doctor says my child shouldn't stay at day-care?' she asks me.
The only answer I could think of for a few minutes was WTF? How on earth am I supposed to know? I'm not her, I have no children, nobody's ill, and I'm not the kind that worries about getting stuff done, I typically just get down to doing it.
Anyway, I directed her to her boss, who would certainly have some guidance on this and really should have been her first port of call. I honestly could not care less that her child is ill. I sympathize, but it's not something that I can do anything about and it doesn't affect me.
I guess it struck me as being a tad weird - maybe I'm not as nice as I thought, but honestly - it doesn't count as 'bad news' in my life if my friends or their children are ill. It counts as bad news if they've broken something (the friend) or the child is hospitalized, or some family member is critical, or someone lost their job etc. Maybe I'm a heartless bitch :)
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Disposition and Predisposition
Personalities are based on numerous things we're told. Genes, upbringing, conditioning etc. In my case, I'd have to agree - all these play a part. I react sometimes based on innate responses (like anger), sometimes based on principles, and sometimes based on mood. Maybe there are more classifications - but you get the drift. A lot of these can be attributed to my genetic structure and a lot to the way I was brought up. But can all of it? At some point I broke with 'family' I had my own experiences and thoughts and could make up my own mind. But maybe that just means that I'm 'hardy'.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene A cousin-in-law posted this article on Facebook and I loved reading it. It suggests that people who are hurt the most by the slings and arrows of a difficult upbringing, also have the most to contribute to society. Not by virtue of their upbringing, but by virtue of their sensitivity, creativity, or other such trait. They feel more strongly, so they may do more. It suggests that the personality type they call 'orchid' would die when not treated appropriately, but when in 'optimal' circumstances, would blossom spectacularly.
What I find special about this article is that there are no value judgements about parents, and there are no excuses for children. Stretching the 'orchid' metaphor, they are not only found in hot-houses. So, the circumstances for the 'orchid' child to develop completely could be completely naturally occurring. I just read 'The Last Lecture' by Randy Pausch (after having seen it on YouTube a few times), and one of the points he made is that he 'lucked out on the Parent Lottery'. I've also recently read 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman' which is an eclectic collection of life incidents, but what stood out for me, is that his parents were completely supportive of his experiments and curiousity. It was dangerous on occasion, but he survived, their house survived, and he went on to be very useful.
I'm contemplating becoming a parent and (as I've stated before) I think I'll be ok at it. What I'm learning though, is that we need to be sensitive to the individual child as well. I have 'principles of child rearing' that I occasionally discuss with OA and we tend to agree, but where we sometimes disagree is how much to 'curtail' a child. Especially with little boys, sometimes they're not very careful. They hurt themselves, they break stuff and such-like. This is not true of all boys, but assuming we have a child like this, is the right answer that we restrict their curiousity and movement to ensure minimum damage to themselves and property? Say we think the right approach is to scare the child into immobility, how would that help? It might ensure the child lives to adult-hood, but with a significant amount of fear. Is there a middle-path? Where we're able to evaluate risk in a split second, and allow some activities, but disallow others? Will a small child be able to evaluate these or understand the difference (i.e. using an electrical device v. putting nail into electricity socket)?
And moving along to the other issue that I wanted to write about. Now that I've read the article, I think my brother is an 'orchid'. There are some 'optimal' settings for him, which he may not have had for most of his life. Now he's an adult, and it seems sometimes like he's not able to get beyond this, probably for the same 'orchid' related issues. If this is true, I'd also like to know if professional help would work, I'd really like him to get it if it works.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene A cousin-in-law posted this article on Facebook and I loved reading it. It suggests that people who are hurt the most by the slings and arrows of a difficult upbringing, also have the most to contribute to society. Not by virtue of their upbringing, but by virtue of their sensitivity, creativity, or other such trait. They feel more strongly, so they may do more. It suggests that the personality type they call 'orchid' would die when not treated appropriately, but when in 'optimal' circumstances, would blossom spectacularly.
What I find special about this article is that there are no value judgements about parents, and there are no excuses for children. Stretching the 'orchid' metaphor, they are not only found in hot-houses. So, the circumstances for the 'orchid' child to develop completely could be completely naturally occurring. I just read 'The Last Lecture' by Randy Pausch (after having seen it on YouTube a few times), and one of the points he made is that he 'lucked out on the Parent Lottery'. I've also recently read 'Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman' which is an eclectic collection of life incidents, but what stood out for me, is that his parents were completely supportive of his experiments and curiousity. It was dangerous on occasion, but he survived, their house survived, and he went on to be very useful.
I'm contemplating becoming a parent and (as I've stated before) I think I'll be ok at it. What I'm learning though, is that we need to be sensitive to the individual child as well. I have 'principles of child rearing' that I occasionally discuss with OA and we tend to agree, but where we sometimes disagree is how much to 'curtail' a child. Especially with little boys, sometimes they're not very careful. They hurt themselves, they break stuff and such-like. This is not true of all boys, but assuming we have a child like this, is the right answer that we restrict their curiousity and movement to ensure minimum damage to themselves and property? Say we think the right approach is to scare the child into immobility, how would that help? It might ensure the child lives to adult-hood, but with a significant amount of fear. Is there a middle-path? Where we're able to evaluate risk in a split second, and allow some activities, but disallow others? Will a small child be able to evaluate these or understand the difference (i.e. using an electrical device v. putting nail into electricity socket)?
And moving along to the other issue that I wanted to write about. Now that I've read the article, I think my brother is an 'orchid'. There are some 'optimal' settings for him, which he may not have had for most of his life. Now he's an adult, and it seems sometimes like he's not able to get beyond this, probably for the same 'orchid' related issues. If this is true, I'd also like to know if professional help would work, I'd really like him to get it if it works.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Professionalism
I think I blogged about this once before, years ago. A senior colleague was telling his super-boss, that someone who had left our organization, was being a thorn in the side of some senior executive. The senior executive was passing the pain along to this senior colleague. The super-boss said, 'don't fight with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it' and then said 'that was advice'. Very good advice I thought.
Through my working life, I've not encouraged gossip. For whatever reason, nobody tells me anything. I have friends in the office, people I hang out with during the work day, but not a single one tells me that 'x' is seeing 'y' or that someone said something about me or somebody else, etc. Ever. In about 9 years of working, that's pretty odd wouldn't you say? I wondered whether to feel left out. Now... I think it's better.
A friend has joined the organization that I work at and has had a very different experience. Given, she's a part of a team and I'm an individual contributor, but I'm still amazed at the situation she finds herself in in 4 months. She's so pissed off with one of her colleagues, that she's willing to tell anybody who'll listen, even people who are in the same team. Naturally they reciprocate very willingly, leading to this wonderfully unhealthy working situation. Sure, it's hard to work with a colleague who seems out to get you, but what's the solution? It's gotten to a stage where this other girl who has the same boss as me, asked me today to do something about it (tell our boss basically).
Instead I called my friend who vented majorly. Sure, there may be things that are upsetting, the other person's behaviour may not be appropriate, but surely there's a 'mature' way to handle this? Not bitching behind her back, even if she does the same? Not complaining about how she doesn't know how to act etc.? Sure, the other woman may be a perfect bitch herself, but we're back to the 'pig' story aren't we?
I think whatever else I may be, I maintain my equanimity. I may not want to, but I'll be damned if someone makes me lose my self control, in a professional interaction. I just thought about it some more, and I've had remarkably agressive interactions, I've been troubled, I've had my credibility questioned etc., but I managed to get through, get the job done and let that speak for me. I'm not perfect, but I'll ensure that people mainly say that I'm 'professional'. Something that my friend has not managed to do.
I'm trying to understand why I felt the urge to write this down, probably because she's my friend, and that had something to do with her getting the job. And now I've another friend considering whether she should join. The key difference between these two? The one who's only considering worked for a long time at a competitive office, where she had to deal with this kind of stuff regularly, and clearly managed. She has another minor advantage though, the woman who's causing the first friend trouble is changing roles, so should have very little left to do with this team at all.
The saddest thing? I have a great professional relationship with the 'trouble-maker'. I think she's smart and sensible. She's had bad luck with team members in the past, maybe that bad-luck is continuing, maybe she's finally met someone who's as competent as her, maybe she's insecure, I'm not sure what it is, but I am sure that it could have all been handled differently.
Through my working life, I've not encouraged gossip. For whatever reason, nobody tells me anything. I have friends in the office, people I hang out with during the work day, but not a single one tells me that 'x' is seeing 'y' or that someone said something about me or somebody else, etc. Ever. In about 9 years of working, that's pretty odd wouldn't you say? I wondered whether to feel left out. Now... I think it's better.
A friend has joined the organization that I work at and has had a very different experience. Given, she's a part of a team and I'm an individual contributor, but I'm still amazed at the situation she finds herself in in 4 months. She's so pissed off with one of her colleagues, that she's willing to tell anybody who'll listen, even people who are in the same team. Naturally they reciprocate very willingly, leading to this wonderfully unhealthy working situation. Sure, it's hard to work with a colleague who seems out to get you, but what's the solution? It's gotten to a stage where this other girl who has the same boss as me, asked me today to do something about it (tell our boss basically).
Instead I called my friend who vented majorly. Sure, there may be things that are upsetting, the other person's behaviour may not be appropriate, but surely there's a 'mature' way to handle this? Not bitching behind her back, even if she does the same? Not complaining about how she doesn't know how to act etc.? Sure, the other woman may be a perfect bitch herself, but we're back to the 'pig' story aren't we?
I think whatever else I may be, I maintain my equanimity. I may not want to, but I'll be damned if someone makes me lose my self control, in a professional interaction. I just thought about it some more, and I've had remarkably agressive interactions, I've been troubled, I've had my credibility questioned etc., but I managed to get through, get the job done and let that speak for me. I'm not perfect, but I'll ensure that people mainly say that I'm 'professional'. Something that my friend has not managed to do.
I'm trying to understand why I felt the urge to write this down, probably because she's my friend, and that had something to do with her getting the job. And now I've another friend considering whether she should join. The key difference between these two? The one who's only considering worked for a long time at a competitive office, where she had to deal with this kind of stuff regularly, and clearly managed. She has another minor advantage though, the woman who's causing the first friend trouble is changing roles, so should have very little left to do with this team at all.
The saddest thing? I have a great professional relationship with the 'trouble-maker'. I think she's smart and sensible. She's had bad luck with team members in the past, maybe that bad-luck is continuing, maybe she's finally met someone who's as competent as her, maybe she's insecure, I'm not sure what it is, but I am sure that it could have all been handled differently.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Random Voyeurism
I used to read this blog earlier, written by a girl who was in love with a neighbour, who broke up with her. One day she protected her blog, and then deleted it. I found today that she'd started another one. So I've spent some hours today reading the new one. She's still as depressed (about 1.5 years after breaking up) but maybe things are looking up in her life. This post is not about that though.
It's about how I think marrying one person when you're still in love with another is the worst thing you could do to your spouse. I know that several people have done it, some have resulted in happy marriages even, but only due to the great strength of the spouse. I personally believe that for a person going into a marriage, expecting a loving spouse, the worst thing you can find is a kind stranger whose thoughts and heart belong to another. Worse, because they agreed to marry you (and they're honest about the choice they made), they try really hard to be good to you but their heart isn't in it. And you try to be a good spouse, you appreciate their contributions, you want to hold hands while walking and they flinch. You try to hug them impulsively and they freeze. Imagine that? Imagine not knowing why the person you're now ready to build your future with is only polite with you. Not being able to understand why they look troubled or sad and when you ask them, they snap or avoid or worse, tell you that they didn't want to get married to you in the first place.
And now imagine the reverse. You're in love with one person but have agreed to marry another. You're expected to have a 'wedding night' and be affectionate with a person you barely know when all you want to do is to be with someone else. Or even to take some time to get over someone else, and be free to fall in love with your spouse, but you don't have that time. You're already in a relationship in which you have multiple duties.
A totally toxic situation, but much more cruel to the one who wasn't expecting it.
Another part of the 'random voyeurism' is that the girl with the blog comments that her friend walked in on her father kissing the cook, 2 years after the friend's mother had died. The situation is not what intrigued me. The kissing is what did. I'm more than willing to admit that for Indian men, the help is the first line of attack. What I found surprising in that story is that the pair were kissing. An activity that I only associate with affection. Much like holding hands. Not like sex or groping, for both of which the other person could be irrelevant, as long as they are of the right sexual pursuasion.
I have also come to the conclusion that this is just me. I watched a movie yesterday - a French film named the Bay of Angels about a man and a gambler. The man learns how to gamble and along the way meets this woman who is a gambler. She seems to be using him, but I could never be sure that that was it. And he seemed besotted enough to be used and not want to let her go. He could see that at times she only wanted his money, not his affection and it hurt him, but he was willing to continue. And I couldn't understand it.
For all my willingness and self-proclaimed ability to see multiple sides of an argument, I'm unable to believe that men feel as strongly as women. Most definitely because I am not a man and have had my fair share of heartache from men. Maybe it's the indepth socializing that men go through that I'm not able to pierce the veil of it and see their true feelings or appreciate that they feel pain as well. Maybe it's that I've not understood many men. The men I've had the opportunity of interacting with (father, brother, husband) have all been reserved. Maybe now I'll get to know more of the sensitive ones. The ones who talk openly about what they think and feel. Maybe they'll get hurt, but hopefully not. And hopefully I'll be privileged enough to see some thinking and feeling.
It's about how I think marrying one person when you're still in love with another is the worst thing you could do to your spouse. I know that several people have done it, some have resulted in happy marriages even, but only due to the great strength of the spouse. I personally believe that for a person going into a marriage, expecting a loving spouse, the worst thing you can find is a kind stranger whose thoughts and heart belong to another. Worse, because they agreed to marry you (and they're honest about the choice they made), they try really hard to be good to you but their heart isn't in it. And you try to be a good spouse, you appreciate their contributions, you want to hold hands while walking and they flinch. You try to hug them impulsively and they freeze. Imagine that? Imagine not knowing why the person you're now ready to build your future with is only polite with you. Not being able to understand why they look troubled or sad and when you ask them, they snap or avoid or worse, tell you that they didn't want to get married to you in the first place.
And now imagine the reverse. You're in love with one person but have agreed to marry another. You're expected to have a 'wedding night' and be affectionate with a person you barely know when all you want to do is to be with someone else. Or even to take some time to get over someone else, and be free to fall in love with your spouse, but you don't have that time. You're already in a relationship in which you have multiple duties.
A totally toxic situation, but much more cruel to the one who wasn't expecting it.
Another part of the 'random voyeurism' is that the girl with the blog comments that her friend walked in on her father kissing the cook, 2 years after the friend's mother had died. The situation is not what intrigued me. The kissing is what did. I'm more than willing to admit that for Indian men, the help is the first line of attack. What I found surprising in that story is that the pair were kissing. An activity that I only associate with affection. Much like holding hands. Not like sex or groping, for both of which the other person could be irrelevant, as long as they are of the right sexual pursuasion.
I have also come to the conclusion that this is just me. I watched a movie yesterday - a French film named the Bay of Angels about a man and a gambler. The man learns how to gamble and along the way meets this woman who is a gambler. She seems to be using him, but I could never be sure that that was it. And he seemed besotted enough to be used and not want to let her go. He could see that at times she only wanted his money, not his affection and it hurt him, but he was willing to continue. And I couldn't understand it.
For all my willingness and self-proclaimed ability to see multiple sides of an argument, I'm unable to believe that men feel as strongly as women. Most definitely because I am not a man and have had my fair share of heartache from men. Maybe it's the indepth socializing that men go through that I'm not able to pierce the veil of it and see their true feelings or appreciate that they feel pain as well. Maybe it's that I've not understood many men. The men I've had the opportunity of interacting with (father, brother, husband) have all been reserved. Maybe now I'll get to know more of the sensitive ones. The ones who talk openly about what they think and feel. Maybe they'll get hurt, but hopefully not. And hopefully I'll be privileged enough to see some thinking and feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)