You just make up your mind that if others have a problem, it's their problem, not yours.

 

Well, it think in certain cases that is easier said than done. If we're talking about the arrogant mailman, the jerk at the dealership, or the a-hole at the gas station, that's one thing. There are others in our lives that we can't ignore. That's the hard part.

 

Unfortunately I know you are right, but it's the best way that I know.

 

Keywords in your opening statement: "always" and "let" deserve attention. If you have the power to "let" folks control your emotion, then you also have the power to "unlet" and "always" can be changed (by you only) to "sometimes." How, especially for the folks you can't ignore, everytime you find yourself reacting in an old, familiar way, catch yourself (hold every thought captive) and say what if I chose to react (or think) differently this time instead of how I would normally handle this situation or person or thing. That was one of the first baby steps I took. It's so empowering and you feel so in control, you want to try it again and again. Just a thought on my proactive v. reactive trip.

 

This is beautifully, succinctly put, Carmen. When you're talking about the people who are important in your life, I am not sure that it's possible to live by the golden rule (which is what I'm interpreting this thread to be about). It's a nice concept for, let's say, the "world at large." However, it doesn't play with the close ones, at least not fully. I also think that leaders of organizations, nations, etc., need to react to their teams as much as to act...

In a general sense, I think folks with power see the "world at large" as a bunch of sheep. You watch a television comedy (already dumbed down to be on TV), and what do you have to deal with? A laugh track! I hate that. I much prefer the rare British / American comedy that has no track and lets me make up my mind. Of course, I find most things to be funny, so I'm a pretty good audience.

Group reaction is a very, very interesting subject. Think about how important an audience's reaction is to a performer. Perfect example of the "reaction" principle in the first post. I can tell you first hand that when you can actually move an audience (whatever it is you're saying/playing/acting), it affects you.

[highhorse]I wish Mr. Bush had done a little reaction to the public before invading Iraq[/highhorse]

 

with parts of Chazmo's statement:

IMO although confused by it I agree with the statement regarding the "sheep mentality". Look how susceptable the general population is to fads and fad diets for example. IMO, one of the best examples of this is "Beanie Babies". Look at the marketing strategy. Let's create a product that we as the manufacturer states is a collectable. Then produce thousands of them in many different models with the exception of a few tapping into the human nature for greed in a consumer society to create an artificial demand for the hard to find ones for a product that does nothing (except perhaps collect dust). I know a former co-worker (without children) who's wife spent thousands of dollars on them? I for one don't get it?

As far as I am concerned "Laugh tracks" should be made illegal. Then perhaps the producers of TV Sitcoms "would really get it", most of their shows are NOT FUNNY. The exceptions IMO are few and far between. I for one was saddened to see Fraizer end. IMO it was the best written show on TV and did not pander to people with a two digit IQ. (which just gave me an idea for a new poll) ;-)

Group reaction is a very interesting subject. IMO best illustrated by the Columbia University study in NYC triggered by the murder of Kitty Genovese in Kew Gardens, Queens, NYC in the mid sixties. She was brutally stabbed to death (twenty-seven times) out side of her apartment building on Austin Street and later twenty-seven people that heard her screaming and did NOT want to "get involved" did not even call the police. This study also included a rape in a NYC subway car where by-standers did nothing to intervene? The conclusion of the study? The more people around, the less likely anyone person will react. :-(

I don't want this to sound like I am patting myself on the back, but I witnessed this first hand on a Long Island beach. While walking along a deserted stretch of beach on the south coast of Long Island there was a group of about twelve people standing and shouting to someone in the water. As I got closer and could hear. It became apparent the the female in the water about 75 yards from shore was shouting for help. They were just standing there shouting back to her. I do not consider myself a strong swimmer but I could not stand there and do nothing. I could not have not live with my self if she had drown. So with out putting my self into a position that I would be in trouble I waded out through the surf far enough that I could coach her in by riding the waves and not getting pulled back out by the under tow. I got her close enough that I could without putting myself in real jeopardy to take her by the hand and lead her to shore. The "funny" part is on this desserted stretch of beach she decided to "skinny dip". As it turned out she had really poor vision with "coke bottle glasses" that she had left on her beach towel. She had gotten into the ocean and once in deep enough decided to take off her one piece swim suit. In the process of doing so, a wave came in and not her off of her feet and she got caught in the under tow (which is very strong on most of the beaches on Long Island) When she came up to the surface she could not see well enough to tell which way the shore was. After I got her back on "terra firma" she explained that she could not hear the people on the beach because of the on-shore wind which carried her screams, they could hear her but she could not hear them.

And finally: I know that many of you have seen me post this before. But it is appropriate again to Carmens original subject. One of my favorite quotes: No one can make you feel badly, without your own consent to do so.

 

From Myra -

I've never used this but couldn't resist when Tom said I react...

It is true that I sometimes react but it's when I am far to close to something or someone and not in my normal daily encounters or work ...There are others in our lives that we can't ignore. That's the hard part. [QUOTE]

Tom on the other hand was raised with the three R's: Respect, RESTRAINT, responsibility. That sometimes leaves him in a position where people he loves are unclear about his feelings or people he supervises are oblivious to the seriousness of what he telling them. It also means that he often "shuts down" with those of us that are close to him.

The key, as far as I can tell is knowing which is appropriate. Not to assume that a stranger (the clerk at the store) is behaving negatively and then to react negatively in return. And with those people we are closest to it is important to temper our reactions to them with Tom's restraint (it seems you were mainly talking in terms of negative reactions).

Balance....there is a time to ACT and a time to REACT. (the classic bystander issue)

It's a lifelong process.

 

Great to see you posting for the first time, Myra. Always nice to get another perspective. Keep it up.

Off topic: Are you brining your swimsuit to FC04?

 

I still have made little to no progress with this.

 

Sure you have, there was a time when you would go off on any and everything. Now you're all mellow and can keep quiet on a variety of subjects.