have come to an interesting ‘revelation’ about relationships and understanding other people. an optimal ‘mode’ is for someone to talk to you and then get to know you.
but within social ties, it often doesn’t happen that way. instead of talking to YOU, a person will talk to someone who also knows you. IF they come to some sort of consensus on who you are or what you are about, they then consider that ample understanding — rather than talking to YOU.
i have been messed up by this “bug” in our social system more than i can say. because then when or even if you get one-on-one time, understanding has to center around ‘unlearning’ what has already been falsely established, and often that’s impossible.
now within online interactions, even though there are limitations within communication via words only (and body language is considered 80% of all communication) — yet that remaining 20% proves to be more able to establish understandings because they are minus the misunderstandings generated when others talk to each other ABOUT you, rather than talking TO YOU in order to understand YOU.
how often in male/female relationships, do problems arise because instead of talking things over with a husband or wife, things are talked over with friends or others who know both of you? and this creates a mis-validation of traits solidified regarding a spouse, and they then take the place of actually getting to KNOW your significant other.
categorizations within “mental illness” act exactly the same way. behavior patterns or a reactive status are seen as ‘typical’ of this and that illness, and then take the place of actually getting to know someone. and the thing about “looking” for a trait or reaction, rather than simply noting ALL actions or reactions …… is a type of selective observation. it is the same “social bug” or error that occurs quite often in scientific experiments, when the scientists should know-better. they go into an observation or experiment already ‘hoping’ to come up with this or that conclusion — and therefore ANY events that refute those conclusions are more likely to be ignored.
now, the thing on getting to ‘know’ someone online is that unless there is mutual interaction — it becomes a one-way understanding. in that, those who read my blog or writing here, but do not interact …. create an understanding which you then run up against in “real life” when you go to talk to them after not interacting for months or years. mostly in those situations i am puzzled or left disoriented — because certain responses might be anticipated from me, but i am not in ‘writing mode’ — i am in conversation mode. and that means you start where you left off in whatever state previously within ‘getting to know someone.’
unfortunately i have had to deal with so many misunderstandings of me and/or my character that my entire body of writing is often saying only one thing:
you don’t know me.
but that is to those in my ‘real life’ relationships ….. for those known online and only through the internet and more one-on-one interactions minus the gossip, no reversal to an understanding is needed.
why are some more gossiped-about than others? i think the answer to that is that those persons do not fit many pre-conceived molds or understandings. and that for whatever reason, others either do not want to know who they really are, or there is basically a laziness in wanting to understand more complicated individuals.
also, within the general social idiosyncrasy that relegates others as “less” in order to bolst misconceptions of oneself as being “more” …there becomes a propensity to relegate those who are difficult to understand (or who do not fit in general social roles within actions/reactions) into a category of “less” rather than formulating an actual and personal understanding of that individual. how many true understandings do you have? a true understanding of another can only happen when that other is seen as an equal human being. equal feelings, equal rights, equal ability to feel pain when those who are loved and closest know you the least. the best way to get to know a person is by talking to them, not about them.
we touch others by listening to who they are and finding mutual interest outside of the mutual ‘views’ of others. every family has its ‘black sheep’ …………but doesn’t have to. if simply replaced with truly trying to understand each other, bonding factors can occur that are not only stronger – but more flexible over time. people change, and part of that change is not necessarily a revelation into what others expect, but rather a demonstration of what that individual expects of themselves.