Intelligent Sensing

 There’s something that makes people pitch their voice at the level at which they can be heard just by their company when in public; and yet something which makes another person carry on as if in conversation with a hall full of listeners, oblivious of the environment.

On the way out someplace where human interaction is inevitable, there’s something that makes one person reach for a mild deodorant or use sparse amounts of whatever scent is available on themselves and yet again, something which makes another person douse him or herself with exactly the scent made purposely to leave a trail of people coughing and gasping for air in its wake and the room quivering from the sudden inability to move air around.

There’s that something which makes the person at one end of the stairway wait to let another come by and still that something that makes another chap brush past without so much as a glance and without noticing that the other person almost went toppling down the stairs.

There’s something that makes someone wash out their mouth into the basin in the communal bathroom and leave already decaying remnants of his or her last meal and spittle (to make sure the decoration sticks) in the basin; and something which makes another take great pains to leave no trace of the visit.

On a difficult day, there’s something that makes that person who walks in on me know it’s really not the best time to engage in a chit chat and take a quick leave of me; while some other person settles for a 2-person monologue in which I get to hear about his or her morning breakfast and how the cats are doing at home.

This is not about good and bad, nor is it about right and wrong. It’s just about feeling, awareness, consciousness and appropriateness. Suppose I wanted to be mischievous; I would say it’s about knowing that I am “too known” and capitalizing on that when necessary or being mindful of how my “too knowness” affects others and modifying my behavior appropriately. But since mischief is very unlike me ... well I will leave that.

I believe it’s called Emotional Intelligence and I am off to read about it. Seems like a tasty, meaty subject I should consider for my thesis. Hmm.

Crash Them Meeting Busters!

There’s nothing anyone could say that would change how I feel about meetings or group discussions. Mostly time wasters, particularly those with agenda and a fair idea what those gathered are expected to achieve. It’s almost as if the knowledge of what is to be achieved sets off a jinx with a bag full of meeting busters. The crafty little devil descends clandestinely on otherwise well meaning and respected members of the group, turning them into a mix of near arrogant; hard-nosed; thick-skinned; totally uncreative idlers and some scatter-brains, leaving a few who could possibly make a difference but don’t stand much of a chance.

If this is not the case then perhaps it must be something to do with enduring features in group dynamics where the coming together of people instinctively sets the stage for a battle of wits (very little of which is usually present), setting up and keeping up appearances and the natural progression of the combined forces of these two into face-saving ploys.  

This assessment may be somewhat harsh however there’s a strong reason for it. I get restless, bored, I get headaches, I get cranky, and already taking in and letting out deep breaths to calm myself, 30minutes into a meeting when the agenda is still being cleared and the imminence of an unproductive or difficult session is evident.

Take the Drifter for instance. Just when something has received a lengthy explanation and been put to rest, he/she innocently and almost humbly requests to be enlightened about the same thing, some 2 agenda items down the line.  He/she has been dozing or daydreaming so he/she latches on to the word that was last heard or just been heard when getting into or coming out of “wanderland”. Someone quickly assumes the responsibility to clarify the matter and a few other willing contributors follow, leaving the current discussion hanging. 

Then floats in the character who has neither new ideas nor significant contribution to make and yet feels an overwhelming necessity to say something, anything. He/she starts off like this; “I agree with what (someone) said” or “I was about to say exactly what (someone) just said” and one would think it would be left at that but no! He/she proceeds to “repeat” what was said in three times as much time as what is being repeated. Mostly it’s a distortion of what has been said which naturally introduces disagreements to which a cacophony of voices suddenly erupt to address. The ensuing 30 minutes is spent getting everyone to appreciate the fine details of the different positions while even more interpretations are joined to the original and “repeated” submission. Surely, if what was said is what was said, why the debate? Better still what was the point repeating what has been said and in three times as much time if not simply to cause mischief or while away time?

www.cartoonworld.com

The quiet, reflective nonentity may attempt to intervene at this point with a summary of the essence of key points from all the confused and round about conversations. Could I heave a sigh of relief as this would provide a respectable return to making progress? Not on my life, it would be another hour before this is acknowledged.

Know it All who thinks whatever is said is never good enough unless it comes from him/ her even if it’s a repetition of what has already been said in their own often more complicated and confusing words enters the fray.  Everyone listens because this submission is delivered in an authoritative and mildly confrontational manner which is best not interrupted. It leaves a short silence at the end, as others struggle to find a response. The silence often translates; “is this not what has been said by many others already?

The Impressionist who seems to understand what others say better than those having their say, comes in to enlighten the group by seeking to explain to all present what he/she believes everyone else was “trying” to say. “Err you see, what (someone) is saying is that ... “. Off course this always backfires because those whose words are being explained together with all others turn on the impressionist who is actually only offloading his/her own fragmented opinion on the matters at hand.

The Redeemer then picks up on a statement from Know it All’s submission which we thought we’d managed to set aside or takes off on a tangent not remotely connected to the agenda.  Either way the conversation takes yet another turn.  

It’s obvious by this time that nothing on the agenda has been or would be dealt with in any systematic or meaningful manner. It’s been two hours or more and even the enthusiastic are a little burned out and hungry. Meeting must adjourn for another day. 

ooh I am so not looking forward to my next meeting but since meetings are a part of my life, I shall be back with my answer to these busters!

Celebrating The Other Woman

Yey...its Mothers’ Day and motherhood is being celebrated all over. The priest in my church blessed all mothers for their care and support and sweat at home and doused us all with holy water. And all the women had a little feast after. I got my fair share of “I love you mom”, “thank you mom” and other nice stuff.

There’s every reason to celebrate mothers. We are indebted to them for providing the incubators (even if some abandon us soon after we are well cooked) and nurturing us (that is those who do not leave us to granny, dad, an orphanage or in the toilet). Being a mother myself I have deep respect for motherhood and I salute all practicing mothers including men who have taken up the task, for their role and contribution to society.

But right now, what I want to celebrate are the other things about the woman in my world aside motherhood; those ones others tend to find unnerving. Yep, who else but a nut-head would do that?

So I am celebrating the “too known woman”;

She has things to say and she says them. What she has to say is significant and intelligent so she gives others the jitters when she’s around. Others think she makes their ignorance too obvious. Too bad she has a head.

I celebrate the woman who “talks too much”;

She is not afraid to show her ignorance for that is how she learns. She searches for answers and analyses situations. She is a challenge to the status quo.

I celebrate the “too confident woman”;

She is comfortable and secure so she feels no anxieties about being herself no matter where she is or in what company she is. She comes with no surprises. Others feel she is out of the ordinary; I think she is and it works for me. 

I celebrate the woman who is “too independent”;

She knows what she’s got and works with it. She is not dependent even when she asks for help. She is the one who gets things done one way or another with or without help if it’s important.

I am celebrating the woman who is “too difficult”;

She walks the straight and narrow path and will not relent. She makes the weak uncomfortable because she insists on what is right and is unfazed by the challenge.

I also celebrate the “domineering woman”;

She takes charge when it is necessary and pushes the hesitant and uncertain into action. She is in control not necessarily controlling.  

Now I celebrate the woman who is “too emotional”;

She simply shows her true feelings and let’s out her true thoughts because she is ready to deal with them.

So here’s to the awesome woman in my life.

What's Love Got To Do With It

Once too often my head, completely of its own accord, indulges in sense-making meanderings about many things, silly things, things that have little to do with my current fancy to lay my hands on some bounty cash. The phrase love is blind is one that has received some attention in these meanderings without any decided conclusion. I personally have never been comfortable with that phrase; seems too simplistic. So when I recently found my head taking off on that tangent again, I thought it’s about time I helped complete this sense-making journey and leave space for ... other stuff.

The phrase love is blind is believed to have been coined by Shakespeare.

“But love is blind and lovers cannot see

The pretty follies that themselves commit

For if they could, Cupid himself would blush

To see me thus transformed to a boy”            (Merchant of Venice)

Shakespeare’s view about the blindness of love is widely shared by many. The reasoning speaks to the many instances when persons “in love” seem to excuse anything done, believe everything said, do anything, take risks, deny themselves, act silly or be foolish for the sake of their targets of love and which things those of us on the periphery of the relationship believe they do because they are “blind”. In other words if people were not blind (aware of the true nature of or state of affairs with the targets of their affection) they would not love (behave as they do in love).  Flip side is; you can’t be in love unless you’re blind or you must be blind to be in love.  Err ridiculous!

When this argument remained at the level of figurative speaking, I was prepared to let it be; understanding that people in love tended to overlook the faults and negative tendencies of their targets of love. At this point it did not represent for me the absence of awareness or consciousness on the part of lovers, rather a choice and disposition to overlook or underrate some things; and therefore not living in ignorance but in knowledge.  What would be played down or not is however directly related to a person’s disposition and present circumstances which varies from person to person.

The key element here is that consciousness is still present; basically people can choose to be silly, even stupid in love; which makes the general posture that we know better than those in love and directly experiencing a relationship, rather conceited.

On my way to work recently, I listened in on a radio discussion where the topic of whether or not to tell a friend about their cheating partner was being discussed. One of the discussants was playing the devil’s advocate (I think) and so was persevering in his submission that as a good friend he felt it his responsibility to tell a friend about their cheating partner if he came upon the information. His position was premised on the fact that “I know my friend very well” and could not allow such a thing to be done to him.

I have many questions for this bloke; who says your friend is unaware of the situation? What are you hoping to achieve by telling? Who says your friend wants to know? Why do you want to cut your friend’s love happiness short? How sure are you, you know what’s going on anyway? What makes you think spilling the beans will be helpful- suppose that is even your aim?

A 2004 “scientific research” touted as supporting the blindness of love position, offered what was meant to be a decider. The research claimed that feelings of love suppress the activity of the areas of the brain that control critical thought. That would mean when people are in love they don’t do logic and that’s what accounts for their “love behaviors”. This is where I begin to have major problems and this interestingly is also the source of the authority of people like the discussant on the radio show who believe people in love are nuts no questions asked!

If the research is suggesting that the state of loving, more or less disables the critical thinking functioning of the brain in relation to the target then it defeats rather than supports the argument that love is blind. Unless the working definition of love is “temporary maybe long-term insanity”; for how can one claim to be in love when the brain is not functioning or reasoning in relation to the target of love? In such a situation we might as well replace, “I am in Love” with the more exciting alternatives like “I am crazy”, or “I am not thinking straight if at all”! (I have to say I do know of a situation that fits the bill – it’s what shall I say...crazy!)

I really don’t buy into the love is a nutty affair argument. Yes, people in love are usually less judgmental of their targets but it is not because they are doing less or no brain-work. In fact I think this assertion is probably flawed because lovers tend also to be the strongest critics.  Loving is not only about giddy feelings of goodness, it’s also about caring, protecting, sharing, enriching, ...these can’t happen if we are not thinking straight and they can’t happen right if we don’t have adequate knowledge of the target of affection or our circumstances. 

I guess what I am saying is, when you catch yourself "head over heels in love", "madly in love", "crazy in love" just look to the qualifying adjectives and you’ll have a fair idea the realm in which you are wallowing. And by the way, there’s nothing wrong with that place, it’s just not the love place ... yet. 

"they are wrong who say that love is blind. On the contrary, nothing-not even the smallest detail-escapes the eyes; one sees everything; but melts it all into one flame with the great and simple: I love you"      (Unknown)