Walk Softly...

The original purpose of this blog was to give me an outlet for the various thoughts, conclusions, revelations, insights and rationalizations (that is, lies I tell myself), that pass through my mind. It was a means of emptying out completed considerations to free up mental capacity for new challenges, a way of ensuring my observations were not lost to me in the same way as nearly 10 years of musings were due to a technical fault on a removable hard drive. It has, however, become more of a forum for me to preach my eco-political views to a readership who are now the target audience of what was once a virtual monologue. 

I return herewith to my original intentions, this post is deliberately not linked on social media, and I would appreciate a degree of discretion on the part of those who choose to read it.

**

A friend of mine has recently suffered the traumatic, and unexpected, end to a long term relationship. This has therefore caused me to dust off a hat that has sat dormant for almost a decade, that of a guide to the unexpectedly single. I've seen a lot of relationships end, some mutual, some not, some from the point of view of the dumpeé and some from the dumper. Those circumstances, plus my own laundry list of ill-timed, ill-conceived or flat out implausible relationships, has given me ample opportunity to  build some understanding of why certain pairings do, or more often, don't, work out.

That is not actually the purpose of this post however, merely a precursor. In conversing with aforesaid friend, I was required to articulate and verbalize various aspects of my own personality and outlook on life which up until now have gone largely unspoken. It seemed fitting to record this observations and considerations..

Unilateral Decision Making

It appeals to those of a libertarian or democratic bent to believe that if a decision impacts them they have some right to be consulted. It is a principle that underpins how we elect our governments, and how we claim adult affairs are conducted. Yet from a logical point of view it makes no sense where any other party's consent is required for a state of affairs to continue.

The choice to give, or withhold, consent is made by each individual, based on their own considerations, and is not open to judicial (i.e. external) review. If I choose to leave my job, my employer has no method for requiring me to change that decision (they may be able to give me a bad reference or stop paying me, but they can't require me to come back to work). If I choose to hold a particular political opinion or support a particular group then others with differing opinions can't require me to change my views.

By the same token a relationship exists because both people in that relationship choose to be part of the pairing. And should either of them choose to leave, the other has no recourse for requiring them to come back. As has been quoted in more than one TV show or film (in various styles) "you can't rationalize someone into loving you".

This facet of reality stands in stark contrast to the world many of us experience in working life where the topic of 'stakeholder management' (or "politics" as it is often dubbed (pejoratively)), consumes a significant portion of our day. In the working would you can rationalize/argue people into doing things they may not agree with - why? Because ultimately the aims of your project or the principles underpinning your analysis are not a function of your consent or opinions, they are a function of the opinions and views of those with authority within the hierarchy of your institution. My job does not require me to agree with the current medium term goals of my business, only that I accept them as the agreed target and work accordingly. My retort in this scenario is to remove my consent from working at all should I feel the situation warrants it, or more bluntly "if you don't like it, you can quit."

The world viewed through the lens of bilateral decision making is one in which rationality, articulate presentation of facts, well grounded opinions and a flair for minor dramatics dominate, it is a place where decisions can be planned and managed, where our skills in presentation and technicalities can provide us a fair degree of control over our future. It is also a place where we are entitled to be consulted, to 'make our case', and where a powerful argument can win over a reticent cohabitant. For those of us with the experiences and skills to thrive in this environment it can feel like a relatively safe place, secure in our linguistics and statistics. 

But as a said above, the majority of the time we do not inhabit the world of bilateral decisions. We live in a world of unilateral decisions; where there is no appeals process, where decisions do not rest with an authority figure that can be swayed by reasoned debate, and where emotion, the lure of money, power, sex, the unknown, or simply blue oceans and warm beaches, carry more weight than all the fantastic constructions of logic and maths that can be constructed. This is a world where our continuity is held hostage to the ongoing, minute by minute, renewal of commitment from those who have formed the foundations of our lives. It is a world where the darkness behind another eyes can, apparently without warning, topple even the most fundamental assumptions by which we build our lives. For those who crave a degree of security and consistency this is a scary proposition, and it is therefore not surprising that we try to cloak with world in the mantel of bilateral decision-ism, but it is ultimately just a covering, a rationalization in the House sense ( a lie we tell ourselves). By accepting this, by accepting that many of the decisions that impact our lives are made without our input, we move a step closer to tranquility.

Framing the Issue

To dip into the huge bag of quotes that is Boston Legal, one in particular seemed relevant recently; "never let the other guy frame the issue." In its original context this was about winning court cases, in effect ensure your arguing the point where your client is in the right. However there is a wider applicability to this concept, how we frame issues to ourselves.

In talking with the aforesaid friend from work, the topic of how you view problems came up, initially in the context of being the "competent" one in a social group. Any given group of friends usually has at least one "competent" individual - they're the ones who everyone implicitly relies on to ensure everyone gets home, that will take charge if a serious problem emerges, and who is generally relied on to follow the Guide's main lesson "Don't Panic."  What makes someone 'competent' then, and how does this relate to the wider issue?  At heart the matter is one of framing the issue, or rather, framing the problem.

Seen through a rational, calm, perspective most of the problems that arise in daily life are not actually that big a deal. Barring the scenario of "drunk bar fight results in death," which, thankfully, I have not had to experience, there is not much that can happen in the normal run of events that is that big a problem.

A credit card, and ability to act relatively sober, and a mobile with a map function can solve most problems, or at least defer them until the morning. There is a simple thought experiment that illustrates this point; imagine you are dropped on a random street, in a random town, somewhere in the country. Could you get home using just what you normally carry with you? In my case the answer is a fairly simple yes. From a phone I can find either a train station or a hotel, and from there I can get back to wherever I need to be. It's not even that big a deal. And to some extent both myself, and aforementioned friend, have found ourselves in this situation and successfully got home, with, at most, the loss of a Sunday morning and the cost of a few taxis.

((As an aside, I know someone else who found themselves in  a similar situation, but with the added problem of he's had his wallet and phone stolen. However, he was still back home by the next day. Having had your stuff stolen does make it harder to deal with things on your own, but also adds a new option of "call the police," - in his particular case via the first pub he came across, and the police and pretty good at dealing with people who have had their stuff nicked and need to get home)).

So, in somewhat circuitous fashion this brings us back to the "Framing the Issue". What do all "competent" people have in common? Is it some stoic ability to face adversity borne out of genetic stubbornness and panache? No - its a mindset that looks at the world from the point of view of "What can I control?" Virtually any issue can be rephrased to something which you control, and once seen through that lens, it is simply a choice between the various options currently available. The exact application of this in the context of an unexpected break-up is to re-frame the issue from "Why did she leave?" to "Given that she has left, what will I do about it?".   The first is a somewhat existential question to which a coherent, fulfilling answer is likely never-coming. It will lead into endless, inwardly looking circles of "but that" and "what if this".  You did not control her decision to leave (unilateral decision making) and the reasons for that decision would not necessarily convince you even if you were given them. Seeing the issue from this angle is therefore inviting a destructive tailspin of introspection and a mash-up of several of the well known stages of grief (especially negotiation; "If I do X or make Y argument she will come back). Re-framed to the issue of "how am I going to react to this situation" sheds a very different light on the subject; "Am I going to be an depressed emotional wreck" or "am I going to move on with my life". This is something you control because it only relates to decisions about yourself. This is a decision over which you have unilateral decision making power.  This is not to say you will just be able to flick a switch and move on with a nonchalant swish of the hair (psychopaths have it easy), but rather having made the decision to move on there is now a goal you control, and progress can be made towards it.

(As an aside, this "How am I going to react?" is actually a way to rephrase virtually any issue to one you control. You can't control the world, but you always at some level have control over how you intellectually, if not always emotionally, react).

Why Relationships?

This is a broad topic, but it perhaps bears touching on here since it had relevance to the original conversation. Why do people form relationships (in the traditional pair-bond sense, rather than a more general "sustained interaction between two people" sense)? Of the dozen or score of couples where I know both partners, the overriding consideration is usually practicality.

The world is built on the assumption that by the time your late-twenties to early thirties you'll be married, (while this may have moved slightly over the last twenty years to a broader definition of 'married' the general ideal hasn't changed). Supermarkets sell food on the assumption your feeding two people, holidays and social events are sold on the basis of 'two sharing,' even in general conversation 'no I'm single' tends to get an odd look at work functions.

(The Departed perhaps has something to say on this topic; “Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think ‘at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.’ Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.” )

And perhaps if you aspire to the middle (I realize that sounds harsh, but ultimately the majority of people are about average  - that's what average on a normal distribution means (EDIT: *no pun intended*)) then the practicality factor is sufficiently overriding. If you expect to earn the £25k type salary that is the middle of the band in this country then maybe you need 2 salaries to buy a house, go on holiday or raise a family. Perhaps if you do 'mainstream' things every evening (watch the Simpson's, pretend to care about each others office gossip), then you need someone else to vindicate that this is a 'normal' life.

But what about the cohort that has pick up the mantel of the yuppies (I did find an acronym that made YOSHI that was something to do with ultra-high savings and investment, but can't find it again)? If you aspire to a 50, 80, or even 100,000 salary by your mid-30s, don't have much time for "pop" culture (whether that's the X-factor, glossy magazines, or increasingly football), and have a fairly wide social group that has been reinforced by the growth in social media that means university cliques never feel away and you can talk to someone 24/7?

There isn't a ringing conclusion to this particular section - when I put it to a few people that the foundation of their relationship (indeed their marriage) was a combination of practicality and social norms, they agreed. Does the admission of such a prosaic function necessarily invalidate those relationships? - No I don't think so. They serve a purpose in helping people live stable, secure lives. Does it hold a great deal of appeal to someone who is financially and emotionally stable without outside input? Also No.

Here's a random metaphor to end things on... standard, stable relationships are annuities. You know what your putting in, and what you get out is predictable and unexciting. But its also stable, predictable and lets you live your life comfortably. Relationships built on dreams and passions and wild intellectual fantasies is playing the lottery with your entire salary - probably not a good idea on a regular basis, hugely risky and painful if it goes wrong, but with the potential to be completely life-changing if you get lucky.


/Z