sagitta luminis

It's December Days time again. This year, I have decided that I'm going to talk about skills and applications thereof, if for no other reason than because I am prone to both the fixed mindset and the downplaying of any skills that I might have obtained as not "real" skills because they do not fit some form of ideal.

06: The Bar

I regularly have people tell me that I have optimistic expectations of people. Especially when I'm boggled at some act or statement or thing that happens in the world, and I cannot possibly fathom why someone would do such a thing, because it is immediate and clear to me that the thing they are doing, or the opeining they are aiming for, or the choice in pick-up material, is so very much not going to work, and is also going to produce some impressive backlash.

The Internet, of course, never fails to produce as many examples as you would like of bad behavior from people of all places, creeds, political orientations, wealth levels, and attitudes. Some, yes, more thatn others, because some of those things do tend to make someone more prone to making terrible decisions. (Some of those things also make it easier to avoid the consequences of those decisions, as well.)

News accounts of these behaviors tend toward either a position that abstracts away some of the terrible behavior or spins it in such a way as to present the behavior as positive or a position that leans very hard into the salaciousness of the behavior and how terrible the person must be that's making that decision. Which doesn't do a whole lot of centering a question on the behavior itself. Less refined accounts, such as one might find on social media, Reddit, or Ask A Manager, are usually better about describing the behaviors in detail, and letting the reader come to any conclusions they would like to about the moral compass of the person involved.

Now, I admit that I don't actually go to those kinds of places on the Internet, because, well, I already get enough of those incidences and their accounts in my current life and places that I look on the blogs, and with enough explanation to know right from the beginning that they're often the kinds of things that contain psychic damage and a whole lot of people behaving poorly. To seek them out would suggest that I'm looking for opportunities to feel better than other people, and that's usually a sign that I'm not doing well at all.

Even with not actively trying to seek them, though, there are times where I look at an account and want to know "why?" Or, I can understand, as the narrative progresses, how deeply in trouble the person will be when they meet Consequences. Because, apparently, I not only have standards, I have trouble understanding why people would behave in ways that are underneath those standards. An awful lot of those times, it's something like "My mother taught me better than that." Or "I have heard and read enough stories about what this person is doing that I know it's not going to end well. Surely they have done so as well, with as much time and experience in the world they have?" Or even "This does not sound like something that would advance the cause of this person is championing."

This is not because I have some kind of special insight, or great experience, or any other similar such thing. I spent my teenage years mostly playing single-player video games and being a student, either in required schooling or at university. This was probably a good thing for me, since I probably wouldn't have known what to do with a relationship if I had one, much as I believed I was interested in having one. (On the flip side, it's possible that if I had had a few relationships by the time I got to the one offered to me that was terrible, I would have recognized it as such and refused, or recognized it as such sooner and bailed before it did as much damage as it did to me.) Even now, with browsing my social feeds and the like, someone had boosted into my timeline a thing that was just "[finger pointing at you] YOU deserve love and happiness" and my first reaction to it was "You don't know me, how could you be so sure about that?" Yes, I realize that's not the usual reaction to such things, but I've spent a lot of my life convinced that this is not the case. (It's still somewhat of a wonder, honestly, that I didn't fall into the spaces that now are grouped under "manosphere," and that I didn't need someone pulling me out of that space to get me right with the world.)

And furthermore, I'm about as perceptive as a brick when it comes to recognizing that people are flirting with me or interested in me. If it's not spelled out in front of me, or someone says something obvious and explicit, I'm not usually inclined to believe that someone is flirting with me. I have not spent a lot of time being admired for my physical capabilities, at least, not in my hearing range. And my "technique," such that it is, seems to be "be a friendly person who contributes meaningfully to a discussion, who listens to what is being said to them, and who doesn't treat other people like they're puzzles to be unlocked, prizes to be won, or characters that you just have to set the right relationship flags with and everything will just naturally happen." There's no mystique to it at all, and I mostly think of this as the base standard by which everyone clearly operates from.

About the time that I articulate a thought of "this thing should be table stakes for interactions with other people, regardless of whether you have pantsfeels for them or not," just about everyone else at the table laughs. Not in a cruel way, but in the way of "never lose that spirit of optimism you have there." Because the lived experience of just about everyone else that I might be articulating this thought in the presence of says that the lowest setting of the bar is not where I think it is, it's several notches lower, if not actively being driven even further into the ground. I know that I only learn by proxy on these matters, not having had any of the experiences that then are shown to me to demonstrate just how far under my minimum acceptable standard behaviors can go. I'm not saying I disbelieve those experiences, far from it, but I'm usually appalled at the behavior that's been captured, because it feels like I'm studying a completely different species at times. There's a visceral wrongness to a lot of it, and especially so when there's persistence in error, or when it's clear to me that someone is approaching the situation with a mindset that is completely different than how I would do it. It's understandable, if I really put some effort into it, but it's not desirable, admirable, or something that I want to emulate in any way at all.

I suppose this kind of thing, this inability to understand without effort the kinds of things that people do and think are okay, makes me someone who is okay to be around? This has also been brought to my attention by others, about who is present when I'm there and who isn't when I'm not, because, again, clueless. (Clueless to the point of "if someone says they're interested in a person with my name, I assume it's the other person with my name in the space.") And other people do say that they value my input on things, and they talk to me about subjects that they might not with others, because I at least understand it (if only by proxy). These are all things that are intellectually understood but not viscerally felt, because my self-image still tends to be "I'm a nobody with no knowledge or understanding of the experiences of others, why would anyone think of me as anything worthwhile?" Which is why this series came into existence, so I could talk about the things that I do well, even if they're not things that I think I do well. I need the practice of acknowledging that that feeling of knowing nothing and being uninteresting to people exists, and that it's wrong.

Because, I suspect, I'm actually getting over the bar a lot more than I think I am.