Who Likes You - in the Long Run? February 4, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Communication, Gratitude, Personal Growth, Psychology, Relationships, Beliefs , 9 commentsWhen I first read through How to Win Friends and Influence People I felt awesome and wanted the whole world to start liking me, one person after another. Some of the principles were obvious to me, like the rule never to badmouth and criticize anyone, but I’ve always been poor at inspiring people to talk about themselves, even though I’m a great listener. I bet there’s something new and something familiar in it for everyone. So how do you make yourself more likeable on a lasting and genuinely significant level? And why isn’t this book the ultimate guide to improved relationships after all?
There was something about the book that I just couldn’t put my finger on.
There was something in the core principles that stopped me from working diligently on improving my relationships to an even greater level than before, even though all of the examples showed excellent results and even though it all made logical sense as well. It all finally dawned upon me once I looked at the big picture and the underlying motive of the book. The objective is to get others to like you, but is that really all you need in order to feel good about yourself?
People come and go, but the only person that will like you for the rest of your life is yourself - but only if you let him/her do that to you. This is the point where some might scoff at my egotistical view, but nobody can deny the fact that you alone consist of the company in which you’ll always be. So it’s most vital that you build on that relationship first before you can start to have other people like you as well.
Don’t you just feel sorry for people that try to be oh so popular while you can see right through their brittle shells that they feel insecure, afraid and disgusted on the inside about themselves? These are the people that don’t have a clue about the difference between self confidence and self esteem. Or about which one of these matters the most.
The reason I didn’t put more effort into all the principles outlined by Carnegie is that I already feel so good about myself that I don’t need others’ acceptance, interest or praise. I like getting some of that, but I don’t need it. I enjoy my current level of being fairly likeable in others’ eyes, but I’m not running a popularity contest. And you shouldn’t feel the urge to do it either, no matter how important it seems to be to some people.
If you strive only for external affection, you will end up getting an unhealthy perspective of yourself. You will only attract people into your life that tell you what you want to hear and not what you should hear. It all gets toxic and twisted in the long run. But if you allow yourself to be in the company of everyone and focus mainly on listening and learning from others, you’ll eventually become a person who leads others by example as well.
What you tell yourself is what creates the really big results and changes in your life. Why? Because what others say to you will always be filtered by your own mind-set about yourself. There are numerous examples of world class top performing athletes, artists and celebrities who receive incredible amounts of goodwill, praise, thank-yous and encouragement, but it all goes wasted because they still don’t feel perfectly satisfied with themselves. So read that sentence again and know it by heart. What others say to you will always be filtered by your own mind-set about yourself.
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Empathy or Equanimity? February 1, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Communication, Emotions, Society, Personal Growth, Philosophy, Relationships, Beliefs, Abilities , 7 commentsI was recently faced with yet another new challenge of battling two concepts against each other and introspectively seeking out an answer on which one is better, if both are good or if neither of them are. It seems that this is what I do and it goes to show by the articles I’ve written so far. So let’s break it down into details and see if we can find a reasonable answer.
Empathy is the ability to listen to a troubled individual and literally opening your mind up so that all the problems, worries, negative emotions, traumas and anxiety can flow into you. You literally feel the pain as you balance the garbage so that the other person starts to feel better when the weight gets transferred off their shoulders and onto yours. This is basically what therapy is about, or starts out as. Therapy Doc Linda Freedman posted a great analysis of it.
Equanimity is then exactly the opposite of empathy as it’s an inner state of total deflection from external negativity, misery and nuisances. This means that whatever inner emotional state you are in is very stable, completely of your own making and other people’s misfortunes or troubles don’t mean anything to you on a mental/emotional level. Comedy and Humor blogger Andrew Brunelle wrote a more in-depth post about this state on his blog.
A quick overview of these two concepts makes you think that empathy is service to others while equanimity is service to self. But is it that black and white?
The pros of empathy is that people will love to seek you out and open their heart to you, if that’s what you want through mastering this skill. Moreover, empathy doesn’t necessarily mean that you only use it to acquire negative feelings, but you might use it to gather some positivism and greatness for yourself when you surround yourself with uplifting people. The con is that it might be hard to turn off that connection in places where there’s little joy to go around. Additionally, it may take time to rid yourself of the miseries that you’ve taken upon yourself from a ’session’. Empathy is to improve the world through suffering (or easing suffrage).
The pros of equanimity is that you fully embrace the concept of your thoughts creating your circumstances. It is also the way of living in total emotional balance and harmony as opposed to the roller coaster of empathic living. Whatever you’re facing, it won’t paralyze, discourage or disappoint you, be it either things or people that affect your objectives. The con of it is that you may find it difficult to spontaneously rejoice over your own or others’ fortunate events. You might also become somewhat of a recluse as people don’t find much interest in spilling their guts over you, because they feel distant in your presence. Equanimity is to improve the world through leading by example (as in showing people that you are calm and unshakeable when facing otherwise stressful, terrifying or wretched events).
Equanimity shouldn’t be confused with indifference though. Or that a person becomes incapable of taking action. Or even that such a person is foolishly unafraid or unaffected by immediate danger. It could be described as total clarity of the present moment, but without having emotions influence your decision making or mind-set.
I believe each person is innately orientating toward one of these concepts more than to the other - as with an MBTI preference. Even though one can’t experience both concepts simultaneously, the question is if one can master them both and use which ever state of mind suits a given situation. This would mean that you can have the pros of both and focus on lessening the impact of the cons of each that I mentioned.
Personally, I’ve always been following the discipline of equanimity very strongly. Empathy has naturally seemed to me as something I want to avoid as I feel I’m meant to orientate towards equanimity. My guess is that if I’d start to practise empathy with much effort, then my level of equanimity would suffer. But I’m not ruling out the possibility that a person can make such a mental shift as easily as pushing a button.
What I do suggest is that a person picks a side, any side. And moving from there it’s all about improving the chosen skill as far as possible to help balance society in the right direction. Both skills aim to reach a balance, either internally within each individual or then on the plane of interrelationships. So unless you happen to be a person who finds himself or herself capable of mastering both states whenever you want, my best bet is that you focus on the one that seems more right to you and that you practise it constantly to make it even better.
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
