A Response to Barret's Open Letter

Dear Barret,

This made me think of times in the mission when I realized this same thing. I realized after having one companion that did so many things day to day that just drove me nuts that I would spend all day just thinking about how much I hated him. Even though I knew I shouldn't hate him, I was in a mental state where every single thing he did or said just drove me absolutely nuts, so much that as he was teaching I would envision hitting him with my scriptures or pushing him off the end of the couch because everything he was saying as he taught drove me absolutely nuts. One day I finally told him about many of the things that bothered me and I felt so so so much better and as we ironed out our differences which took no longer than 15 minutes we both got along better than ever. In fact, once I had told him about all the stuff that bothered me it no longer bothered me that he did it. I even said to him after it was all over, you know what, I don't even care anymore if you do X anymore, I just feel better knowing that you know it bothers/ed me. Then I always tried to handle any problem that annoyed me right away as it happened instead of letting it boil away inside of me. Even pretty big things, like once I got really mad and told one of my companions that he was way too arrogant and all of the ward members hated him and thus hated us because he was passively-aggressively rude to everyone and once he realized that I honestly believed that he believed he was better than everyone he started crying, but after about a 20 minute discussion we got along better than we ever had all transfer.

I also like what Dr. Blanton said in the video I posted on my tumblog about how many times when we are mad at people we aren't actually mad at them, we are mad at our own perceptions of them, which usually aren't a very accurate portrayal of that actual person. There is a book called "Bonds that Make us Free" by a BYU philosophy Professor that is basically about that whole subject and has countless examples. One I can remember (sort of) was a couple who constantly fought at Christmas time because the husband always felt that his wife put so much work and emphasis on presents and decorations and doing all these activities that he felt that they never actually got quality family time during christmas because they were too overscheduled with everything, so he would always complain and try to challenge his wife by participating as little as possible (which was his way of putting his foot down) so that christmastime wouldn't wreck their normal family life. However, on the wife's end, she interpreted his actions as just a plain bad attitude towards christmas and because she wanted so badly to feel united and together as a family at christmas she felt like she had to try and do all these things to get him in the christmas spirit but they both resented each other for their actions and with more time they both became stronger and stronger in their actions and views and just created more and more resentment and bigger problems between them which lasted for years. The husband felt that if he gave into his wife's demands then she would take over and Christmas would be ruined for everyone. The wife felt that if she gave into her husband's demands then Christmas wouldn't be meaningful and would be ruined for everyone. Finally, because this was causing so much trouble in their marrige and family they went and saw the guy who wrote the book for marriage counseling (or something along those lines, I may be fudging the specific details) and as they talked about it they realized where each other were coming from and that basically, they both wanted the same thing at christmas time, family togetherness, and once they got everything off their chests they felt a lot better and the husband no longer cared if they did so many christmas activities and the wife no longer cared if they didn't do so many christmas activities and the problem was solved. The problem was that instead of just coming out and being honest with everything they both tried to solve the problem by forcing what they wanted on their (false) perception of the other person and their motives. The husband's solution to the problem was the problem that the wife was trying to solve and vice versa. So here they were locked in this neverending cycle that was completely unnecessary to begin with because in the end they both wanted the same thing but they were both living in two separate worlds in which they believed they were the hero keeping the other one in check.

That started out as an example of how talking about our problems face to face solves them quicker than holding onto them but got sort of sidetracked and I introduced a whole new set of themes. Anyways, back to Radical Honesty. (But first I might add that that book (Bonds That Make Us Free) has probably been one of the most influential books in the way I view the world and human interactions which extends to politics and many other views. I strongly recommend it to anyone.)

My point is this, which I learned on my mission and which after reading this book (Bonds That Make Us Free), which was the first book I read when I got home, was the realization that the one and only way of solving a conflict between two people or to effectively work between two people is to sit down and tell the other person, face to face, exactly how you feel and why you feel that way and what you think the problem is, then, in return, they can tell you, then you can work it out, face to face. Not in an accusatory manner, but in one that is honest and explains why you feel the way you do (e.g. "If you wouldn't do X then we wouldn't have this problem" (accusatory) vs. "When you do [this thing] then I feel [this thing/creates some problem]. That is why I don't like it.)"). The problem is that, no one actually does that. They have a disagreement with someone so then they don't actually address the problem head on to that person, but as soon as the person is gone they piss and whine to everyone else about their one sided version of the problem, which more times than not, is actually radically different from what the other person's perception of the problem is. Then people start taking sides and deciding who's right when both of them in one way are right and both of them are in one way wrong. They resent their false perception of the other person instead of what that person actually is. This is why lies (or just omission of honesty) creates running sores while the quick pain of truth can pass away. The more I think about it, the more I think that cushioning someone from truth does absolutely no good at all. Provided that, the person isn't just saying it to be nasty, but to let the truth be known and to work out the problems if needs be.

I also think that our culture may not be wired properly just yet (but it's time to evolve, culture) to be able to handle this at first because people might just think that someone is being nasty or mean by telling the truth, but sometimes you have to just understand that even though someone may say something negative by telling the truth it doesn't mean they hate you. We all recognize shortcomings in others and even in ourselves and we don't have to get offended if someone points it out. (This prompts me to go on another similarly related but different tangent on why privacy is overrated but I won't because this is already pretty lengthy.) If we're all aware of it then there's nothing to be gained by ignoring it. Improvement can only come by acknowledging it. We are only holding ourselves and others back by not telling the truth always.

Also, as for this week, I think I've had a few situations in which I've "turned up the throttle" so to speak, but I still have a lot of room for improvement. I feel like I'm funnier when I actually speak what I'm thinking. I also feel at those moments like I'm really living and realize that it's probably the only way to really feel happy. (So why does it have to be so hard to actually do?)