"What other people think doesn't matter."

[not sure]

I've been thinking* about that statement, prompted by some studying I've been doing. It's said so often and assumed to be true yet, every time I see it my mind nags at me. I think that's because it isn't really true. What other people think does matter because their opinions act as a gauge for our behaviour.

The problem lies in how we express our thoughts. We tend to lay blame on others instead of describing our own feelings accurately. Part of that may be that we are unsure of what we feel. Another part may be that we don't want to be vulnerable and still another part may be that we want to manage expectations.

For example, instead of saying, "I am frustrated because..." we will say "You need to..." or "You are..." and of course the other person just hears demands or feels attacked. Another example is "I like..." or even "I love..." or "I appreciate...". Those often are not said at all even though that's truly what we feel because we are afraid that by saying those words we'll raise the other person's expectations beyond what we can handle.

We all do hold back on our praise and express too much of our negative criticism. The result is that good relationships are gradually eroded by hurt feelings. Apologies are made and accepted but before the wound heals, we begin the cycle again until it reaches a point where we don't want to deal with each other. Perhaps, we need to slow down and think about what we are saying. Maybe it's all right to say, "I feel this or that because..." instead of saying "You caused this or that.." or "You are this or that..." It's certainly not easy to change lifetime habits but maybe that subtle change can make a difference to our happiness.

Share your thoughts please.


*I need to break this habit. It's ruining my sleep.

 

[randomsomeone]

I think basic thoughtfullness and kindness are vastly underrated, especially as they emerge from inner strength, lack of fearfullness, and true, deep awareness of ourselves and the other. We all live in community of one form or another, and so others do matter a great deal. Now, we may very much be aligned according to the truth uniquely within us, but even here being open to the thoughts, ideas, discernments that emerge within the community is a viable means of weighing, refining, and moderating this truth...a mechanism for even deeper personal awareness and growth. A little humility benefits us greatly.

So, yes, on one level to say we "do not care what others think" may be true, but on another it could be a very childish, immature, and ego-centric stance, and there is plenty of that around.

 

[Reon]

I'm tired, so I'm not going to make a long post. I think the key distinction is what the interpreter means by "other people". If you live your life by your own standards and morals, you will attract people to you that accept you and like you for who you are. Your friend/family group should be the individuals that support you and give you strength and support. After that, "What other people think doesn't matter".

 

[IrenaShav]

When I find somebody dear and important to me or useful in some way, I constantly try to leave a good impression on them. Always good to friends and family and usually polite to friends' friends and almost never lose self-control when things get tough.

As for the other people, I don't really give a s**t what they think about my personality or looks. that would just take away my energy. I save all of my analytical and sucking up skills for worthiest opportunities only.

 

[not sure]

Well, I don't think you should allow other's people opinions to override your own opinions. However, I think it is fair to take them into consideration. If other people's opinions didn't matter there would be no reason for us to be having exchanges on these forums or in any other venue. I think the reason we tend to say other people's opinions do not matter is that so often they are expressed in ways that are damaging. What do you think of the idea that we should instead our opinions in a way that expresses accurately how we feel instead of hiding our true feelings behind critical words? Also, do you think we would have less conflict if instead of reacting to criticism defensively we instead asked the critic to explain the feeling that prompted them to express themselves in that way?

 

[Gaze]

I think the reason we tend to say other people's opinions do not matter is that so often they are expressed in ways that are damaging.

Yep, yep, yep. This is why people avoid criticism and engaging in conflict. I also don't believe in direct honesty at all times. I think people too often use the concept of direct or brutal honesty to defame, demean, or hurt someone in the name of "I'm just being honest with you". Nothing is wrong with being considerate of someone's feelings.

There is a time and a place for brutal honesty, just as there is a time and place for tact and diplomacy. What would be more effective with tact and diplomacy is handled with unbridled and irresponsible speech or communication. What may need brutal and harsh honesty is sometimes handled with tact and diplomacy.

We are falling in the trap of trying to apply the same strategies or approaches to every situation instead of looking at the people, situation, and problem and figuring out what it needs to address it effectively. We too often impose our own personal impressions of how something should be handled on everyone else.

And people need to realize there are consequences to how we handle conflict. We can't go around saying things to whoever however we want and think there should be no repercussions. People are not robots. We need to be more aware of how we say things. Complete honesty is great in theory but more tricky in practice.

And finally, I am not sure why everyone needs to know everything I think or feel. Who am I to impose that on someone? Even if someone hates or just mildly dislikes me, doesn't mean I need to know or be aware of it. They have a right to their feelings. As long as they are respectful and polite and not making decisions which negatively affect me, then why is it important that I should have to listen to what they feel or think about me.

I think sometimes, we give too much importance to our own opinions of ourselves and others. Seriously, we need to get over ourselves sometimes.

 

[not sure]

And finally, I am not sure why everyone needs to know everything I think or feel. Who am I to impose that on someone? Even if someone hates or just mildly dislikes me, doesn't mean I need to know or be aware of it. They have a right to their feelings. As long as they are respectful and polite and not making decisions which negatively affect me, then why is it important that I should have to listen to what they feel or think about me.

I think sometimes, we give too much importance to our own opinions of ourselves and others. Seriously, we need to get over ourselves sometimes.

Everyone doesn't need to know everything we think or feel. It's dangerous to be vulnerable and really we should be careful of who, how, when, where and why we choose to be. That being said, I think in a situation of conflict sometimes it helps to know where the other person is coming from. When we express our emotions on the matter, we are likely to see that our motivations are honest and quite often good although different from the other person's. That allows us to focus on solving the problem in a way that takes our feelings into consideration so that we can resolve the situation hopefully in a way that satisfies everyone. At the heart of many conflicts are bruised feelings. This idea is very appealing to me. I've taken the approach that there is a right way and a wrong way so it's logical to do this but often what happens is the solution fails because the other party doesn't feel satisfied. Right and wrong have been satisfied but the people have not.

 

[Trifoilum]

True. It does matter.

Most of the time it would be self-preservation...of the ego, mostly. Of what and who we are, and who we'd like to be. It's easier to put blame to the world and come off as squeaky clean and innocent. It's easier to brush over people's feelings instead of tainting the image of ourselves; which itself are most likely to be........not always present, at the very best.

I do think the 'you are' sentences is necessary, at one point or another. because more often than not, the idea of 'invalidation' is used as an emotional blackmail. But I digress.

All in all, I feel that you are hitting the right marks here.

 

[Gaze]

Everyone doesn't need to know everything we think or feel. It's dangerous to be vulnerable and really we should be careful of who, how, when, where and why we choose to be. That being said, I think in a situation of conflict sometimes it helps to know where the other person is coming from. When we express our emotions on the matter, we are likely to see that our motivations are honest and quite often good although different from the other person's. That allows us to focus on solving the problem in a way that takes our feelings into consideration so that we can resolve the situation hopefully in a way that satisfies everyone. At the heart of many conflicts are bruised feelings. This idea is very appealing to me. I've taken the approach that there is a right way and a wrong way so it's logical to do this but often what happens is the solution fails because the other party doesn't feel satisfied. Right and wrong have been satisfied but the people have not.

Agree, there definitley needs to be a degree openness so each person knows what the other person is thinking or feeling, so the conflict can be resolved. Or else it becomes too easy to assume the other person is thinking one thing when they're really thinking something else. It's very easy to then misinterpret what they feel or think because we have no confirmation from their words.

 

[not sure]

I do think the 'you are' sentences is necessary, at one point or another. because more often than not, the idea of 'invalidation' is used as an emotional blackmail. But I digress.

I would love it if you expanded on this because I think it is relevant. When would a "you are..." sentence be necessary? What would it be okay to say in such a sentence?

 

[Trifoilum]

I would love it if you expanded on this because I think it is relevant. When would a "you are..." sentence be necessary? What would it be okay to say in such a sentence?

When that someone needs to be thrown a figurative bucket of cold water, most ideally.

"You are acting nonsense."
"You are being a jerk right now."

In this case, saying 'I think you are....' or 'I feel upset because....' won't do because THEN, the blame is on you for feeling like that. Why the hell are you feeling like that?

"I think you are being a jerk right now." "I'm not! It's because he's the one who said this and that and this and that, why do you think that way? You are attacking me!"

Less ideally (because to do this is to engage) is to break through someone's barrier of emotional blackmail. Namely the variant of "Follow my way of thinking and accept it as fact! OR ELSE YOU ARE INVALIDATING MY FEELINGS YOU CRUEL HEARTLESS PERSON"

'you are' sentences basically implicitly designates that this statement is a perfect truth-- (underlying within it is "according to the speaker's perspective"). Thus, there might be other uses.

The case is the same with 'you need this and that' and 'you caused this and that' sentences; albeit the use are, obviously, different.

 

[not sure]

In this case, saying 'I think you are....' or 'I feel upset because....' won't do because THEN, the blame is on you for feeling like that. Why the hell are you feeling like that?

I think this is where carefully selecting with whom you are vulnerable comes into play. Your feelings simply are and aren't really up for dispute.

When that someone needs to be thrown a figurative bucket of cold water, most ideally.

"You are acting nonsense."
"You are being a jerk right now."

Replying like this doesn't really solve the problem though. The shock will have one out of two consequences, a temporary retreat followed by a new attack or immediate escalation of the conflict. Basically, to reply like this is to be guilty of the same behaviour. I do it all the time (and it has been done to me). "I do the thing I hate." It's very difficult to remain calm in such a situation. Perhaps, this is one of the times for questions which change the emphasis from self to the other. Maybe, the appropriate thing to do is ask, "Why are you doing such?" and if that doesn't work maybe take some time away.

One of the things I find interesting is that we'll say this person is verbally abusive but in my opinion quite a good portion of human interaction is verbally abusive and yet considered normal. We just seem to have set a bar and said, "Okay. When it gets to this stage, get angry."

 

[donkeybals]

Shifting the blame. Hmm. Not everyone does this imo, but some do. Well, if you consistently do this, I'm pretty sure it's not going to go unnoticed.

What other people think of you does matter I think. It really comes down to protection if you want to get deeper. Well not only but it's a main component of this. I always like to go back to cave man times just to get a general idea of what motivates our behavior. For example if 12 cavemen really really hated you and wanted you dead. And you were all alone, then they could easily kill you. Instinctively you know this, that's why it feels bad to get rejected and not be accepted. If you belonged to a group of 20 cavemen, and 12 cavemen hated you and tried killing you, the other 19 would want to attack the other group.

Actually a lot of this comradery is gone now if you think about it. You can simulate it by joining a sports team, etc. But nothing like fighting in the caveman era. Hmm, to be a caveman, I would so want to do this for a day! Anyway, this is just my crackpot theory, I have a lot of unorthodox views on psychology and the world and stuff. I think a lot of people find this stuff uninteresting to conscienciously express what they unconsciously know. With that said, don't listen to me, I've licked a lot of acid in my day. :thumb:

 

[aeon]

When that someone needs to be thrown a figurative bucket of cold water, most ideally.

"You are acting nonsense."
"You are being a jerk right now."

In this case, saying 'I think you are....' or 'I feel upset because....' won't do because THEN, the blame is on you for feeling like that. Why the hell are you feeling like that?

Why does there have to be blame at all, for one

 

[Gaze]

Cleverbot conversation WC00320554

Is this bot clever?

Find out at http://www.cleverbot.com

Email this conversation to a friend

See a detailed log with times



User: Does what people think really matter?



Cleverbot: Not really.

User: Why not?



Cleverbot: Well, I don't really understand it very much.

User: What don't you understand?



Cleverbot: I don't understand the previous thing you said, it doesn't make sense in context.

User: Does it matter what people think?

Cleverbot: Well, not on the scale of things, no.

User: Does it matter what people think about you?

Cleverbot: What do you think about existentialism?

User: That it exists?

Cleverbot: I don't understand.

User: What do you think about people?

Cleverbot: I think that they are mammals. What about you?

User: How do you feel about people?

Cleverbot: People seem to always do what they think is right, but they don't agree on what that would be.

User: Do you think people's opinions should matter?

Cleverbot: Only some people.

User: Whose opinions should matter?

Cleverbot: Yours if she is anything like you.

User: Do you value other people's opinions?

Cleverbot: How can you say that other people's opinions don't matter to you when you are simply a collection of other people's opinions compiled together in a computer program?

interesting

 

[acd]

It is better to use "I" language rather than "you" language when expressing personal thoughts and feelings. Using "I" indicates that you own these thoughts and feelings and take full responsibility for them.
"You" language is often used to blame and accuse.

"You're a jerk." vs. "I feel disrespected." The second statement opens up discussion or a chance to better understand the situation. The first one, just shuts any rational discussion or solution down and sets an offensive/defensive climate.

"You" language is evaluative while "I" language is descriptive. It is off-putting to have someone else do the labeling and evaluating for you.

 

[Trifoilum]

....
I think I replied too long. And mused too much. I'm sorry if there's something unclear, or seemingly defensive, for that is not my intention at all.

I think this is where carefully selecting with whom you are vulnerable comes into play. Your feelings simply are and aren't really up for dispute.

True, which again goes back to the intentions at hand; do you want to express your feelings / opinions, or do you want to express your observations?

Personally speaking, I often pulled a faux pas that is, turning observation into opinion, 'I am' sentences, etc; and vice versa.
i.e :
(I noticed) you are slightly prickly today >> I feel hurt because you've been very prickly.
I think she is going nowhere in this case >> She is going nowhere in this case.
You are wrong >> I think A is B.

In effect; a) lowering or raising the 'strength' of the sentence, and b) the insinuation; just as @acd had said; you can be looked as accusing when you don't intend to, or too weak (thus ignored) when you need them to listen. Both has happened to me.

The chance of it being received wrongfully still exist, and even with this you can brush over what people are thinking. (I think I've insinuated this several times in the post, if not committing the blunder myself).. It is my fault in delivering as it is theirs in receiving, but my message simply didn't get across, in the sea of rationales and reasons.

....and sometimes you need to cut through the BS and emotional blackmail, and that's it.

Replying like this doesn't really solve the problem though. The shock will have one out of two consequences, a temporary retreat followed by a new attack or immediate escalation of the conflict. Basically, to reply like this is to be guilty of the same behaviour. I do it all the time (and it has been done to me). "I do the thing I hate." It's very difficult to remain calm in such a situation. Perhaps, this is one of the times for questions which change the emphasis from self to the other. Maybe, the appropriate thing to do is ask, "Why are you doing such?" and if that doesn't work maybe take some time away.

...I didn't say anything about this being a reply. As a reply, the chance of it being seen as an offense is far, far higher. And true, if it were to happen that way, escalation will happen, thus preventing the message to get across. But the same will happen if a certain firmness wasn't applied either, no?

About emphasis, I would say it depends on how people come across (not how people are, albeit it can be related) in ordinary times. Do you put your emphasis on yourself more, or on people more? A contrast (for example, people-focused / Fe user using 'I sentences' the way Fi would, and self-focused / Fi user using 'you sentences' the way Fe would) can deliver a certain punch to the message.

But you are indeed, right. The shock may or may not be received well; which is why I'd said it would be the ideal use. In reality both sentences are probably used normally (at least in a common, non-heated situation.)

I personally think the problem when I use 'I' sentences too much is that I am turning everything I am typing about what I'm seeing into something about myself. What I see, what I think, what I observe, what I feel.....while I do take full responsibility, I am with an opinion that I am also implicitly forcing other people to bow down to it. So if I were to think the way I do, I would insinuate what I'm typing and the way I'm coming across as being selfish while I certainly do not intend to think that way. But it'll come across as if I'm thinking that what you, him, her, or that other person were doing to -me- and how should I react to it. And I would think that is kinda annoying as much as I am talking here.

So both has its times. Too much 'I sentences' and my words lost the facts and starts becoming opinion. Too much 'you sentences' and I become a jerk.

And in verbal interactions, the words didn't matter as much as the tone and how you said it and the situation itself....at least, as far as I observed.

One of the things I find interesting is that we'll say this person is verbally abusive but in my opinion quite a good portion of human interaction is verbally abusive and yet considered normal. We just seem to have set a bar and said, "Okay. When it gets to this stage, get angry."

Hmm, can you explain more?
I personally think that it relies in insinuations and subtle 'feel on words' (like, why 'you sentences' hurts.) that sets the line to verbal abuse, and it was a certain blockheadedness that prevents some people to catch the insinuations, which in turns starts hurting more sensitive people. I've been on both places. (Especially in my native language.)

Why does there have to be blame at all, for one’s own feelings, or otherwise?

State what you need, state what you like, state what you value and that which you do not. Be open, not only with oneself, but in receipt of another — listen to them, hear what they are saying, absent judgment — meet them where they are. Give feedback, ask questions, make the goal mutual understanding of one another. Ask if someone is willing to help meet your needs, always remembering that oneself is responsible for getting them met, and be willing to help another meet theirs if and when they ask. In those times when conflict arises because of misunderstanding and/or being emotionally flooded, engage in a process of conflict resolution that honors and respects oneself and the other, in both feeling and need.

Bucket of cold water? :suspicious:


Namaste,
Ian

True enough (and this is a blunder of mine, see; it was supposed to be a retelling of an observation (is that an opinion by itself?)) And I'd say your ways are far more healthier.

But some people wants to be right. And to them are my words referring to, to people who, by the curse of temporary emotional overlap, or the harsher ghost of bad development, or simply the unlucky case of having a different disposition than the speaker; any of which leads to an unwillingness to listen or to merely budge towards the other side, leaving the comfortably beneficial perspective to which they are the most right and true. To them, will the cold water go.

 

[not sure]

[MENTION=1669]Rite[/MENTION]. That Cleverbot is certainly clever!

I always like to go back to cave man times just to get a general idea of what motivates our behavior.

I like how you think. We are interdependent and our survival depends on others liking us. If they don't they have no reason to offer their protection. This is true even today.

Using "I" indicates that you own these thoughts and feelings and take full responsibility for them. "You" language is often used to blame and accuse.

Yes it is true. I think it is the accusations that lead to counter-accusations of the kind [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION] mentioned.

Less ideally (because to do this is to engage) is to break through someone's barrier of emotional blackmail. Namely the variant of "Follow my way of thinking and accept it as fact! OR ELSE YOU ARE INVALIDATING MY FEELINGS YOU CRUEL HEARTLESS PERSON"

engage in a process of conflict resolution that honors and respects oneself and the other, in both feeling and need.

I agree that conflict resolution is the way to go and that's what I've been hinting. Thanks for naming it. However, conflict resolution requires participants who are willing to cooperate. I think [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION] was pointing to the situation where the other party is unwilling and instead is using their power domineeringly. Conflict resolution seems to have no solution for that situation except to walk away. Is there an alternative? This is going beyond the original aim of this thread but I'd like to pursue it.

P.S. Trifoilum, I was just using the sentences for my argument. There was no judgement of you or assumption that you would use them. I however, have done that sort of thing out of frustration.

 

[not sure]

Quoting kiu:

One of the things I find interesting is that we'll say this person is verbally abusive but in my opinion quite a good portion of human interaction is verbally abusive and yet considered normal. We just seem to have set a bar and said, "Okay. When it gets to this stage, get angry."

Quoting [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION]:

Hmm, can you explain more?
I personally think that it relies in insinuations and subtle 'feel on words' (like, why 'you sentences' hurts.) that sets the line to verbal abuse, and it was a certain blockheadedness that prevents some people to catch the insinuations, which in turns starts hurting more sensitive people. I've been on both places. (Especially in my native language.)

I personally think the problem when I use 'I' sentences too much is that I am turning everything I am typing about what I'm seeing into something about myself. Too much 'I sentences' and my words lost the facts and starts becoming opinion. Too much 'you sentences' and I become a jerk.
<snip>
And in verbal interactions, the words didn't matter as much as the tone and how you said it and the situation itself....at least, as far as I observed.

Well. I like what you've said there. Managing our image means that there is a certain amount of dishonesty in how we present ourselves to others. Therefore, we don't say "I" too often so that we don't appear selfish but there is still a pressing need to express so that only leaves the option of shifting it to "You." Perhaps, we need to reevaluate if saying "I" is indeed selfish. Maybe it's what follows the word "I" that truly indicates selfishness and not "I" in itself since "I" is simply a reference point.

As to a lot of human interaction seeming to be verbally abusive, this just comes from observation. People seem to think it's all right to speak in a hurtful way, especially, if there is an argument. There was once a guy who I refused to date because I knew of his argumentative history with a friend which involved, name calling, invalidation, ignoring etc. I asked him if he thought that was normal behaviour and he did. In fact, he thought it was silly to expect people to behave any other way. "That's what people do." I have a problem with this. It is very common behaviour but I don't think it's normal. If we start from the position that it is normal, what incentive do we have to improve?

 

[acd]

I think that 'I' language is more diplomatic, not oppressive in discussions because other people see that you are not speaking for them or labeling things for them, you are allowing them to disagree and then offer their opinion. I think there is more room for collaboration with 'I' language.

Also, most of what we think is not fact, it's opinion--especially when it comes to other people. If I call someone a jerk, it doesn't make them a jerk. It's opinion backed up by the way I feel, so why not acknowledge the root of the statement, which is the feeling behind it?

If you say in response to someone instead, "I feel disrespected..." You are acknowledging that their actions have had an affect on you--I think this is more realistic.

As for using the 'you are' statements to jolt someone out of being unpleasant or manipulative, I think it has an adverse effect and as I mentioned earlier, comes off as offensive and makes the other person defensive--and much more unpleasant and manipulative.

I know I resort to 'you are' statements in an argument when I am frustrated and not interested in solving the conflict, but only want to make the other person feel as angry and powerless as I do.