When the sensitivity to themselves and their feelings becomes a skill that provides professionalism, begin to show things that had not been seen. Radar became more receptive, and now it gets more.
here is an example from my recent communication with my mom.
Talking, I felt a small surge of irritation, but found it inappropriate and (as I then thought) gave him to be manifested. And if I would have just forgot about it, now has learned to explore things and draw conclusions.
What happened between us?
I chose us tickets to the theater and asked my mother, as if she wanted more - so I agreed with her performance, or that it was a surprise. She said: “Let it be a surprise. You're not bad advise?”
BAM! It. Mild irritation. I surprised him (because it's such a common question!), and answered carefully: “Maybe advise. 50: 50)". And continued to choose independently.
Later, when it was time to reflect, I asked myself what it is about my mother's words caused me to have unpleasant emotions.
“You're not bad advise?” - that there is uslyshali me? Inflated parental expectations? Idealization of me? These assumptions were similar to the truth, but didn't satisfy me completely. It wasn't that. And then it dawned on me.
Mother innocently gave me the responsibility for her emotions.
Though how it will react - it depends only on me. In this view there is no place for the mother - not her responsibility what mood she comes into the room, what sense to ascribe what is happening on stage, what life experiences they will react, which in the end will SEE and what to miss because of distraction, reverie, psychological protection… And all this vast field of causes that form the final rating.
Therefore, “You're not bad advise?” is an invitation in the mail merge. This is another way of saying “I admit that my reaction I can control, I want them fully answered you”.
No, of course I tried to guess that the performance fell to her liking (like me). I wanted her to like it. But I certainly was not ready to sign what guarantee was not physically able.
And so, even knowing there and then the whole underwater part of the iceberg called "my irritation," I still answered on the basis of it. My “50: 50" drew a boundary that I felt very clearly.
And here is my message to all, whom it may be valuable.
We can make an effort to make someone good.
But we can't control, whether it's like him will affect him and how.
This is not our area of responsibility. We're outside. We provide only a part - efforts and not someone's emotions in response to them.
This is a very liberating thought, actually. It eliminates invisible, but such a heavy burden (choose any): burden "delight" burden "to entertain" burden "relax"... or what else can you want from important people (or you think they want it, or want it themselves). Where there is a burden there, and in the event that excessive wine, not owned by you.
Well, the most far-reaching idea. With the main text, it is not much related, but it seems important to me.
If among those who read this have grown up children who are being bullied yourself for what has failed once in the past enough to delight the mother to pull her out of the depression, enough to comfort the Pope, that he did not seek solace in alcohol, and so on.
You could not.
they had to want to be “saved”.
And then "escape". Themselves. Asking or not asking for help, accepting it or not - they need to be saved/to rejoice/to be comforted THEMSELVES, and not to take this mission on someone who is not capable of it by definition.
Thank you for your attention. I hope my self-exploration and reflection that resulted from it will be useful to someone.