Awareness – ParticipaStory

August 2, 2018

An overused word

When I hear a certain word used frequently, I perk up. I don’t want to miss out on a hot, go-to word that’s fun to say and might make it easier for me to connect with others. But, at the same time I want to steer people away from saying something inappropriately when pop culture has taken a wrong turn.

That said, I fear that the word “gross” has become terribly overused, and often to describe non-gross conditions. I’d finally had enough when recently on a plane, another passenger put her carryon in the space above me. In order to make it fit, she had to rearrange some other luggage and in doing so some loose dirt or sand fell off that bag, mostly onto my lap. Some of it must have gotten on her, though, because she loudly exclaimed “Gross!” But, a little dirt is not gross. What was gross was her excessive rudeness – she got it all over me and never uttered an “excuse me” or even a quick little “sorry”.

So let’s examine what it means to be gross. In this context, it means disgusting or repellent. Here are several such qualities that should be easy to agree on. Sticky. Smelly. Certainly slimy. Wet by itself is usually not gross, but moist often is. To go a step further, I think that in order to be gross, something must also be organic. If you’ve ever encountered gross plastic, it was gross because of something else on it, or the damage it had wreaked on its surroundings, not it in itself. Plain dirt, even wet, is not gross. Now bacteria are everywhere, especially in the soil, so you might argue that their presence makes dirt organic and therefore potentially gross, but the key word here is “potentially”. I contend the quantity of bacteria must be enough to produce a foul, or at least discernible odor.

A human being can be sticky, slimy, smelly, moist, and is definitely organic. And there is hardly anything more repellent than an infected pus-filled wound or an unwashed crevice. But only a part of a person can be gross, never the person as a whole. You still must exercise caution around a person. If a poorly timed use of the word makes a sick person’s day even worse due to embarrassment, than you are the truly gross one in that situation.

But aside from such an extreme example, what’s the harm in overusing gross? Isn’t fun to exaggerate, to make fairly simple events seem more grand and exciting than they really are? The harm is in producing unnecessary alarm. Unnecessary alarm can lead to overreaction, deploying resources away from important places to where they aren’t actually needed. Or leading a person to embarrass himself by squealing in fear or revulsion when there was nothing to be scared of at all.

Maybe you think you have a right to exclaim how something makes you feel. If you think it is gross, than it’s Gross!, right? Based upon the authority vested in me by my ability to write whatever I want on this blog, I say, well, maybe. If you weren’t able to contain your automatic disgust reflex, than most likely it was really gross. But if someone thinks it’s okay to call gross on whatever produces a slight tinge of unpleasantness, than I should have the right to ask questions about it. What’s moist about that? Are you sure that’s really gross? Go ahead and touch it and then see if it’s gross. Or my favorite, it you think that’s gross, what about….? I could get into trouble with that one, since I often have trouble with quick decisions.

You have a right to your own opinion, but also an obligation to fellow members of society to clarify the individual nature of this judgment. “I think that is gross.” Is sufficient. Or if you make a broad declaration out of habit, Gross!, and then realize it isn’t actually gross, just add on “to me”.

If you think writing several hundred words on this subject is a gross waste of time, then please consider the underlying message. It is important to think about what you say, and to be as clear, accurate, and honest as possible. Obviously you cannot always be taking accurate note of everything – the unconscious mind successfully processes most of what you encounter. But if something is truly gross, your automatic disgust response will kick in and guide you appropriately.

September 7, 2017September 18, 2017

Using Fresh Words to Defuse Old Tensions

When someone speaks so loudly their voice intrudes on everyone nearby, it’s sort of your duty as a good interdependent citizen to speak up. Don’t you want to know when you are annoying others? So unless you’ve heard the person clearly state “I know I’m loud and I don’t care”, just ask if they intend to be heard by everyone. They might really appreciate this feedback, especially if they are newly hired CIA agents, Mafia members, or just rumor mongering neighbors who think no one is aware of their gossip.

Now hopefully you’ve listened in on their conversation and learned a bit about them. What if you’ve gotten the sense they won’t respond well to the direct approach? Or what if you just have trouble being direct? Just because you don’t think the person will be receptive to your input doesn’t mean you should give up. So try starting a conversation by introducing a new word. Fortunately, I have a fresh one to suggest. It might feel funny or sound foolish, but exposing your own vulnerability might make the person a more receptive listener.

Here goes. Time to intervene. Tell the person that they should be used in a dictionary as a perfect example of a loudpiquer. Be sure to maintain a fair, evenly composed facial expression. The best way to do that, of course, is to genuinely want to learn more about this individual and share valuable feedback. But, if your underlying attitude is one of hostility or a desire to escalate tension, please don’t do this at all. But, you should definitely continue reading this blog and buy all my books.

This person may have several possible reactions. Because loudpiquer sounds a lot like loudspeaker, they’ll probably know you’re talking about their voice levels. Yet, they’ll also be a little confused, and think, he didn’t say “speaker”, he said “piquer” (although they’ll probably mentally spell it “peaker”.) But saying they are a “perfect” example, and could be used in a dictionary (very smart) will come off as a compliment and should disarm whatever tension might otherwise arise from butting into their conversation. They should also be impressed by your generosity. After all, you’re bearing the gift of increased vocabulary.

Now that you have that person’s attention, explain a little more about the word. We all know the word loud. Pique (with an iqu) can mean to arouse curiosity or cause irritation. Either way, that’s what is happening. The ensuing conversation should answer questions about the person’s awareness, their general interest in new things, and their willingness to adapt to the needs of others. And, you’ll learn more about yourself as you try a new way to interact with people.

Of course it’s possible the person won’t appreciate this new word, and maybe even think that you are making fun of them with it. Tread carefully if you get this vibe. Our playful interventions will take some practice and I don’t want anyone getting discouraged by a painful beating or some other humiliating public experience. Apologize if necessary, but explain that you were just trying to do them a favor. Don’t act scared, but be respectful. Pay attention, file away their response in your powerful, computer-like brain, and it will add to your knowledge about social interactions. Over time you will become increasingly adept at dealing with people. Probably.

April 19, 2017May 23, 2017

I Am Aware and I Care Emoji

How do you react when someone looks at your mobile phone or laptop screen without your invitation? Maybe you just shrug it off, or glare at the person. But please consider it a good opportunity to develop social skills, beginning with your ability to read expressions. Is the person looking with concentrated effort, or just gazing about with no clear purpose? You can check your answer by asking in a non threatening way – “Hey, why you’re looking at what I’m looking at?” or just moving the screen out of range and monitoring the reaction.

A more tech approach would be to open an app that featuring an eye staring back at that person, alerting them to the fact you know they are looking. Even more empowering would be an emoji that could convey the range of mental reactions you might have to their screenlifting. But what would you want to express?

Anger or hostility would only seem to beg more problems. It might help if you are reasonably sure the looker was an immediate threat. But otherwise, how do you know she wasn’t about to warn you that she had spotted a terrible malware? Fear might be an honest message, but probably unwise if the person is inclined to cause harm. Kindness is usually always good, no matter what the situation, but might be exploited by a person you know little about. I would recommend a neutral expression that sends this message: I am aware, and I care.

What better position to find a mutually agreeable outcome, both for you and the looker? The fact you care doesn’t mean you are angry or glad they are looking, just interested in why. It invites discussion of their intention and puts you in the best position going forward no matter what the lookers’ intention. It broadcasts strength through awareness and engagement. A neutral state of caring gives you options to focus on yourself if they are too self interested, or more about them if it turns out they need help. Of course, if the person harbors immediate malicious intent, forget the emoji expression and either fight or run, depending on the situation.

Now on the flip side, if you are discovered looking at a screen, how should you respond? If you mean that person harm, well, I’m not sure why you are reading a blog devoted to improving human relations through mutually agreeable outcomes. But perhaps you are trying to become a better person and my first piece of advice would be to acknowledge wrongdoing while making sure to restrain yourself from any violent impulses. If you are a secret intelligence officer and are caught reading the screen of a dangerous enemy, just rely on your training. I don’t know what to tell you.

But, if like most in this situation, your eyes land on another’s screen out of genuine curiosity, inattention, or boredom. And you won’t yet have an emoji to express an emotional state, so you’ll need to use your face and body language to respond. What will you want to say?

Do you feel you had a right to look at the screen, since it was right in front of you? If the screen owner is unhappy, then they shouldn’t have held it up, right? It’s much easier to convey this with a sneer or look of contempt, than actually using those words. Or do you feel guilty, like you have trespassed on this person’s digital property and you should get off as quickly as possible? Your embarrassed look away and inability to make eye contact will get that message across.

Your attitude about being discovered, your response to it, should match your belief about how far your rights extend into others’. And here lies an opportunity to turn a minor incident in line at Starbucks or the local library into a philosophical examination of wide ranging implications. How much do you feel entitled to others’ space or inner knowledge? How much should you know about what others know? How much permission do you need? And do you think others should expect the same of you? If you have decided that your goal in every interaction is find a mutually agreeable outcome then your inquiry, your curiosity, your efforts are trying to serve the both of you. Even if you make a mistake, you can avoid the sense of guilt that accompanies self conflict, and focus on learning from it.

It’s okay if what you think your rights are overlap or intrude into what they think their rights are. That happens all the time and will continue. But it’s not okay to ignore or lie about it, though. That just makes problems worse. Figure out how your overlapping, conflicting interests can find a mutually agreeable outcome starts by expressing that you are aware that they are aware, and you care.

I wish I knew how to tell you exactly how to express this caring awareness. Figuring it out is one of the main near term goals of this blog.

March 8, 2017

Bubble Freedom

With every preference you choose on your phone, tablet, or laptop your life becomes a little easier, the world more centered around you. The customized bubble you design supplies you with just the right mix of ideas and entertainment plus access to the actual necessities of life. And since you can stay in your bubble and still Face-time friends and family, why burst it? It’s only isolating if you neglect to think and care about other people around you, and that can easily describe some people completely disconnected from technology. In fact, I would say it happened to people for centuries before we ever had text alerts and social media.

Why some people do not think or care as much about others as well as, others, is huge question for another day. But it seems safe to say that while our technology did not create the condition of uncaring ignorance, it certainly makes it easier for those conditions to form.

By filling your screen with this post I hope you gain some new ways to consider this issue. Participastory strives to inspire more thoughtful interaction and awareness between people. Part of that must include discovering how to integrate technology into life without reducing our humanity (and ideally enhancing it). Screens aren’t going away. Limiting our time in front of them may work for some, but for many it requires too much discipline, or even a different job. So perhaps a good first step for a lot of people to break free of their bubble is just to start looking at other peoples’ screens. They are right there in front of you in check out lines, beside you in meetings, in coffee shops. Why not?

At first glance you might think this was just a dreadfully long set up for a joke. Well, congratulations, you got it! It was a joke, sort of. I write sort of, because consciously deciding to acquaint yourself with another person by reading what’s on her laptop screen might be more efficient and interesting than the initial small talk so many of us engage in. Sure, it currently violates a lot of social norms around privacy. But our norms may change rapidly as technology becomes increasingly woven into our every day life. We already show pictures from our phones to people, and share articles, forward emails. Who is to say if the convenience of technology will make us so lazy that someday we just say, here I don’t know what you’ll like or not so just look through it yourself. Except, we won’t bother to use words, but some sort of hologram-projected emoji of our feelings. But for now, looking at others’ screens seems a violation, so much so that I have adopted the term suggestive of petty retail theft, “screenlifting”.

But as in all interpersonal interactions, if you see someone checking out your screen, or do it to someone else, there is an opportunity to learn more about that person. What could be more anti bubble than exploring other humans? Some of you may decide to engage this person immediately. “What are you looking at?” That’s a defensive, confrontational phrase that has been around a long time. It doesn’t necessarily have to apply to a person looking at another person, but I only recommend it if uttered in a calm, curious manner. In my next post I’ll discuss what you might consider about the screenlifting experience before you act.

January 28, 2017February 19, 2017

Linguistic Reparations

Whether I’m working out on one leg during T25, or seeking the right mix of work and play, I’m always trying to achieve balance. Nowhere is this more important than in choosing what to say to others. Clear communication requires directness, sometimes even abrupt boldness, and yet every person is a potential minefield of unique sensibilities. Stating the plain truth is important, but poor timing or bad choice of words can arouse emotions that prevent the content of your message from ever being heard. Selecting the right personal pronoun is an example of how hard it can be to strike that balance.

In many ways pronouns illustrate some of the differences between the sexes. Women have received the short end of the stick in a lot of ways for a long time. Pay, job opportunities, myriad legal rights are just some examples. This inequality even crept into English grammar so that when the gender of an antecedent was unknown, proper English automatically defaulted to he, him, his. Well, that’s not only biased, it’s often inaccurate. So what do we do? Some have combated this linguistic misogyny by simply flipping the script and defaulting to she, her, hers when referring to an unknown antecedent. This still leaves us vulnerable to the same inaccuracy problems. So some language leaders use “they” now when the sex is unknown, even with singular subjects. Sometimes I do that when speaking, but when in writing I can’t overcome concerns about lack of clarity.

Some gender neutral words have been invented, but none have gained much acceptance. For now they I’m afraid they create a distracting source of confusion among mainstream readerships. Since many of the scenarios I describe in this blog require a personal pronoun without clear antecedent, I need a solution, and here it is. Most of my posts deal with how people treat each other. When I am referring to someone who is neutral or behaving well, if the gender of that person is not known I will use a female pronoun, she, her, hers. But if I am writing about a person of unknown gender who behaves poorly, thoughtlessly, or is an asshole in any way, I will use the pronoun he, him, or his. I can’t make everyone happy with this decision, but for now I’ll pay up some linguistics reparations. Sorry for all the years of oppression and neglect, sisters. P.S. I’ll deal with binary gender and gender fluid concerns later.

November 30, 2016

Applying the Ware Care Continuum Part 3: Discovery

Gathering enough information about a person in order to assess awareness and caring can be tricky. Just the phrase “gathering information about a person” sounds ominous. So here are some common sense suggestions. I haven’t scientifically tested these methods, but I am, as far as I know, still a member of society in good standing. And while they may not help, they at least don’t seem to hurt.

The first thing most people do when they want to know more about someone is to look at him or her. But beware not to intrude with your eyes. Most of us, at some point, have been made uncomfortable by a stare of another person. If the individual is imposing or sinister, it can be scary discomfort. If they appear to know you, but you don’t know them, expect awkward discomfort. And if you the person seems to like you or wants something from you, a range of comforts might open up – from very comfortable, to how can I get out of here –discomfort.

Try to gather information directly, while making eye contact. If you are in an unpleasant encounter, too much eye contact or questioning can escalate tensions. If your goal is mutually satisfactory outcomes, you may need to avoid making things worse by trying to learn too much too quickly. But if you are on a mission to understand someone’s awareness and caring, you can’t give up.

The deepest understanding often comes from conversation, full of questions and answers. People don’t like a lot of personal questions unless being asked by a person who cares about them, and even then they don’t always appreciate it. It’s often helpful to state why you are asking questions. While learning and sharing the truth about each other is an important objective, the emotions devoted to our sense of vulnerability can make it complicated. Figuring out the best way to express our interest in others will is goal of Participastory.

For example, if I tell someone I don’t know well, “Hi, the only reason I’m asking these questions is because I want to know how much you are aware of and care about other people,” that will probably make that other person nervous, unless she is running for office or some kind of advocacy job and has thought about that answer quite a bit already.

Looking and listening won’t always reveal everything someone’s awareness and caring. When those are insufficient, use your other senses. Smell, but from an appropriate distance, which is the standard area of personal space, at least 18 inches. And be sensitive to how loudly you do so; while it’s poor taste to smell someone secretly, sniffing loudly a person can send the wrong signal too. Touch can be okay, but mainly in the form of a hearty clap on the back, a hug, or a handshake. Touch can quickly send a negative signal about your level of awareness and caring, so if you have any reservation about it use, avoid it completely. Even greater caution should be exercised around gathering information through the sense of taste. Some cultures promote active cheek kissing as a form of greeting. In that situation you might collect some data about the person from the lip contact, but rarely should you use tongue. You need a good understanding of a person’s level of awareness and caring well before using tongue.

One of the best ways to learn about someone is to discuss him or her with friends and acquaintances. Again, be careful because there is high risk of discomfort, guilt feelings, and the invasion into family and friendship bonds. Just as I hope you know I’m trying to get a few chuckles by exploiting assumptions about gossip, you should realize that talking to people about others is a rich source of information. Sometimes you can learn more about the person from their friends than from that person directly. This is not to turn our society into a police state full of interviews and friendship canvasses, but to utilize some of the same techniques for finding bad actors to learn how to better appreciate our good ones.

Future posts will explore the best ways to learn more about each other, and in the process, ourselves.

August 9, 2016August 9, 2016

Applying the Ware Care Continuum Part 2: Care

The previous post provided a basic template for evaluating a person’s awareness. Accurately judging how much a person cares about other people is more difficult. A history of often getting it wrong, sometimes with very painful consequences, has given the judging process a bad name. It’s easy to be wrong. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. After all, knowing how much a person cares about others is important. Some might say the most important thing.

So how do we do it? First we must establish what care means. You can care about another person in many ways, not all good. For practitioners of the Ware Care Continuum, caring shall be considered as wanting the best for another person, even if you don’t wish to be part of that person’s life. A better definition is that caring means seeking mutually satisfactory outcomes. This only works, though, if both sides have some knowledge of what the other wants. In other words, they must have some awareness of each other. And to evaluate another’s level of care, you must need to know how much that person is aware.

For an example, let’s evaluate the care level of someone you watch interact with another person. How a person treats someone else should have a strong affect on you, even though they are not doing something directly to you. Imagine seeing someone spit in another person’s face. It’s tempting to think that the spitter doesn’t care about the spittee. Or that she cares very much about that person and wants to inflict humiliation and indignity. Since humiliation clashes with a mutually satisfaction (except in certain sado masochistic relationships), that kind of powerful caring is considered low- care.

But, what if the spitter perceived a wound on the recipient’s face, and, with no first aid kit available, and having just learned that there are antibacterial properties in saliva, thought she was doing the right thing for the person? This knowledge changes the care assessment. Would licking the wound be the more caring response? Perhaps, but again, it is possible the spitter was aware of the wounded person’s aversion to tongue contact or some other overall need for personal space.

Okay, so this is an extreme example, but one that illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand another’s level of care. A more common instance might be a man ignoring his child’s cries. It may appear that he doesn’t care, but what if he is trying to teach the child to self soothe?

So, what does an actual low care status look like? A hearing, fully capable person, who walks past someone in obvious distress without stopping is an obvious example. But it is probably less common, and might not be so useful. How about this – a person who appears to be listening to another individual express a point of view, but who just smiles, nods his head, and walks off. That would be a sign of not caring about the other person’s issue. We will continue to look for other examples, and post them here to aid in developing this process. Your help puts the “participate” in participastory.

The easiest way to assess if a person cares is to determine if they have the ability to do something, fix a problem, make a change, and yet fail to act on it. The affect we have on others often starts with how we care for ourselves. If you see a person with poor personal hygiene who also has obvious material advantages such as a nice home, car, job, it may seem obvious the person doesn’t care about his appearance. While this person may be a slob, before quickly assuming he is a low care, remember that our assessments are about interactions with others, not an individual’s personal habits. But this example begins with basic actions and expressions of existence. If he smells bad, and his body odors creep into your nostrils, that does reflect a lack of caring about the experience of others near him. Even if there is an allergy to deodorant, the person might use some sort of oil or scent to mitigate the smell. Similar examples can be made of those who don’t try to control anxiety, fear, or anger. These emotions directly affect other people. Anxiety can be as infectious as the flu. But how do you know if someone’s anxiety is controllable or run amok by abnormal neurochemical balances?

Making these assessments will be complicated. Difficulty in figuring others out may be one of the main reasons people give up and decide they don’t care. Indifference is easier than the difficult work of properly assessing others.

Staying in the same subject as hygiene, just because a person is very clean, does not mean that he cares about others. He might conceal his body odor due to fear of embarrassment and vanity. However, everyone who doesn’t have to smell him will probably be grateful, whatever the motivation. So how do you evaluate people who commit thoughtful, considerate acts for others, but don’t really care about them? Those who help others only to advance themselves socially or position themselves to exploit others? We will explore these questions and more going forward. One goal of practicing the Ware Care Continuum, though, is to understand and read people better. But in order for that to happen, we must do more than just think their assessments, we must share them.

Feedback is only useful if you share it. Please feel free to share feedback with me about this blog below.

July 11, 2016

Applying the Ware Care Continuum

To improve our interdependence, we should invoke John F. Kennedy. Ask not how someone or something makes you feel, ask how you make others feel. That’s not always an easy conversation to start, unless you step on their toes, spill hot coffee in their lap, cut them off in traffic, or turn them on in some irresistible way. That gets quick feedback. The rest of the time, though, asking about feelings evokes a sense of privacy, intimacy, and for some, weak sentimentality. So let’s call it how we affect other people. That sounds more neutral, less vulnerable. How do you learn how you affect others? Do you just ask? Maybe sometime we can get that direct. But for now we probably need to give something of ourselves first, namely we can share information about how they affect us.

It’s usually easy to tell someone if she has made a positive affect on you. It can be much harder when an interaction is unpleasant. Negative impressions stick with us. We often avoid giving feedback about the experience for fear of upsetting the person, saying the wrong thing, or we actually say the wrong thing that makes the situation worse. When your interests are offended, it’s easy to conclude that the person doesn’t care about you. The person might care, but lack awareness. Using the Ware Care Continuum can help you avoid some unpleasant reactions associated with a negative interaction by increasing your understanding of the person. It can also open up ways to share your impressions of others in case that person wants help with personal growth.

Here’s how it works. When someone upsets you, interrupt the counterproductive chain of reactions with questions. Instead of thinking, this &^%# just cut me off, or interrupted me, or wasted my time, ask, did this &^%$ know I am here, or aware I wasn’t finished, or think I wasn’t busy right now? If calling that person an expletive helps relieve a little tension, go ahead. But only in your mind. And keep your face neutral too. Sometimes your expression can call a person a douchebag without you saying a word. The curiosity behind the questions should replace some of the animosity, and what you learn should give you better options in handling the situation.

This inquiry should get at how this person affects you, not other aspects of personal preferences, tastes, and so on. Remember, though, that we are not promoting self-centeredness, but interdependence. Ask specific questions about areas the person can control. Some qualities like how a person speaks, looks, moves, for example, are outside control. They may annoy you, which is an affect, but one that shouldn’t change your reaction. If it does, you need to examine your own sense of tolerance. To know how a person affects you, ask how much is the person aware and cares.

Is this person aware of me, of my presence? That’s the most basic level of inquiry. Then, is this person aware of what I’m doing? Am I driving? Talking to someone else? Busy at my job? That’s a lower to medium level. A low ware or med ware. Is this person aware of how I am doing right now? If I am in pain? Distress? Happy? Sad? Angry? Knowledge of these mental states range from a medium level of awareness to high. Some folks mask their emotions well or simply always have flat affects. Is this person aware that I like her? Dislike him? Is this person aware of my thoughts, my cares? If yes, that signifies a high ware.

Your evaluation of the person’s awareness indicates your level of expectation. In other words, by evaluating that person you are also examining yourself. Why do I think that person should know my name? Have I introduced myself properly? Am I friendly and engaging? Do I think I am well known in this area? The answers to those questions might help you interact better with everyone else you meet. It will start a path for you to understand how you affect others. And if your warecare assessments are shared properly, they might help others.

It’s taken me a long time to write this post because I’ve made so many revisions to it. I’ve even changed the name of the process from Care/Aware Index to the Ware Care Continuum. I hope the latter is better. Another big question was about the best names or descriptors to use. These descriptions need to be short, and preferably pleasing to the ear. To start, we will modify high, medium, or low along with care and aware to create the phrases high ware, low care, med ware high care, low ware, low care, and so forth. I’m sure when someone blocks you in the hallway without seeming to care, or gets upset about something that wasn’t your fault, calling or thinking of them as a low ware may lack the satisfying sense of power that asshole or SOB provides. But understanding the person better should be satisfying on a deeper level. Now, if you dig into the situation and discover the person is a low ware, low care, or worse, high ware, low care, you may find they are in fact an a-hole. At least now you will have something to back it up. And by participating in the development of the WareCare Continuum, you might discover ways to help someone overcome such a personality deficiency. Isn’t changing someone better than just judging him?