Chats with Courtney: Helping Others

I made the above diagram to help explain the topic of our discussion:

Kyle: Courtney, I need you to spot check the logic behind this.
Courtney: Okay? What's the topic?
K: Helping people.
C: Oh, I like helping people!
K: Good, because I want your help. First off, is it fair to say that you can break people into two categories: Need help, or don't need help?
C: Sure that's basic.
K: What about can you also overlap those with: Want help and don't want help?
C: Sure.
K: is there anything I'm missing?
C: I don't think so. --I could be wrong but I don't think there are any outliers to this.
K: Ok, so where they overlap you get 4 categories of people: A) People who don't want help and don't need it. B) People who don't want help but need it. C) People who want help but don't need it, and D) people who want help and need help.  With me so far? (see diagram above)
C: Yes.
K: Well, this is the part I want you to really spot check to make sure I'm not missing anything: People who fall into category A, if you try to help them and they don't need nor want your help, they will probably resent you and maybe withdraw from you.
C: I can see that--You might find someone who is a pushover that avoids conflict, but by and large most people will probably do that.
K: And if you try to help someone in category B, who don't want your help but need it, then they might do the same thing--there is the potential that they'll change their mind after it's over, but they'll resent you the whole way and maybe withdraw from you and it will definitely change the relationship, but hopefully your help will improve their life and in time they will see it.
C: That sounds right. Particularly with friends I have had whose kids got into drugs and they had to do some drastic things in order to get their kid to get back on the right path. The kid resented them but it was for their own good...
K: --With category C, you can help these people, but they don't really need you to do it. They'll appreciate you, but when it comes down to it they are either letting you help them because they want you to feel integrated to their life, or because they are lazy.
C: That sounds like the best so far... minus that it's a drag if they are lazy.
K: Yes, I agree. That's the best of the four categories in my opinion but the potential is there that they are merely relying on you because they are too lazy to do it themselves.
C: Right...but what about the last category?
K: So category D... People who need help and want help. I think on the surface these sound like the ideal one, because when you help them, you are doing a good thing, plus they want your help and will appreciate you--BUT, the problem is that if you help them, then they never learn to do it themselves. They never learn to figure things out on their own and they become dependent on you into the future. After all, what motivation would they have to do it for themselves if they could get you to do it for them?
C: I agree with that...mostly. But I don't think EVERYONE would become dependent...some people naturally want to do things on their own, and they just need a little help in the present.
K: Possibly...but those people are far and few. In fact, the only person I know of who is that way is myself...and I'm not so sure that I'm ALWAYS that way.
C: Right...Well cool. This all makes sense to me so far. What prompted this?
K: I went through a bit of depression a week ago--actually, it was a month or two spiraling down into depression and a brief stint of depression when it all culminated--and it was all related to this topic. I just couldn't shake this feeling that people were taking advantage of me, or they weren't appreciating me enough or valuing me enough, or that they were becoming dependent on me and not giving me time to take care of myself and expecting too much from me, or when I'd try to help them because they needed help they'd resent me for it and withdraw from me and reject me. It wasn't a good feeling, and at the time I didn't have an objective perspective of this to make sense of it.
C: And you do now?
K: Yes. Now I realize a few things because of this: First, I realize that I shouldn't get involved with category A people--I already knew that, but it's easy to forget sometimes when you get lost in your mind. Second, I realized that if I intend to help category D people, I need to accept that there is a very real possibility that they will become dependent on me and that I will have to carry my load, plus their load--I can't hold out for them to suddenly not be dependent on me because it may never happen, and at times they may be ungrateful because they feel entitled. So if I intend to help people who need my help, I need to make sure that I am comfortable with helping them forever with that thing, and if not, then I won't help them.
C: That seems fair...though doesn't that become a little frustrating when you see people who need help but you can't help them because of that?
K: Absolutely! And that's the same for category B people--They don't want your help but they need it, and if I decide to help them then I have to accept that they will probably resent me, not be grateful for it, and may even end our friendship because of it--temporarily or permanently. --Or they could also become dependent on me with or without the resentment still there. Helping people who need it is a difficult thing for sure! I like what pitbull says "Ask for money, get advice, ask for advice, get money twice."
C: Which means...?
K: If you ask for money, people ought to just give you advice on how to make money, because if you give them money they keep coming back and they'll be ungrateful either way--ungrateful because you didn't give them waht they want and ungrateful because they start to feel entitled. Whereas if they come asking for advice on how to make money, you can be a little more liberal, give them advice, give them money to help get started, and then they can make money because they take the advice to heart.--money twice.
C: Oh, I get it. Cool.  What about the other category, what are you going to do about those?
K: Category C?... I have decided to do a situation check: if at the time I feel like helping them, I'll help them, if not I'll say no. --Mostly that is based on the situation of if I am busy doing something else.--I love to help people, and if they want my help and want to involve me in their life, then sure, I'll help them, do them favors, give them advice, etc etc. --If I like them that is. In fact, all of this is contingent on me liking the person, and I'll admit that I'm partial to people. I'm not going to help someone if I don't like them--I have to first find something about them I like, which is difficult with some people.
C: Kyle, you're so selfish.
K: No, I'm a very loving and giving person...if I like them. And I like and love more people than you might think.
C: I'm just kidding. I've seen you and the way you love. It's very free and warm.
K: That's why I went into a sort of depression though... At times I don't have control over who I love. I fell in love with a girl at the grocery store who I only talked to periodically and knew very little about, but I knew that I wanted her to get over the things she was going through--and I felt bad when I'd check out and could tell she was having a bad day.
C: I think you're just abnormally empathetic...Plus, like I said, you love freely and don't let things get in the way of loving--which is very admirable.
K: Thanks. So now that I am able to wrap my head around what is bothering me, I have a plan for how to resolve it. I know better in what situations to step in and help or give of myself, and in what situations I simply cannot help. --I'm okay with people being dependent on my sometimes--I'm able to get my needs met pretty quickly and so from that point I can help others in exchange for whatever...but with other things I definitely can't allow it to happen. Understanding this has made me a whole lot more at peace with life and feeling like I am in control again, which is great!
C: Good to hear! I love you Kyle, you're such a good friend and an inspiration. Thank you!




------------
Closing notes:
After writing out the conversation again, I realized something interesting: 
Loving people, giving of yourself, and helping other people is always going to be more drawback than good. You may never get thanked, you will either be sapped dry by their dependencies, or they will feel entitled to you. The only people who will consistently thank you and appreciate you are those who don't need your help--so you may face the thought that "you're not needed." But hey, that's okay! It's good actually. To not be needed and yet still wanted in their life is a wonderful thing. People who are fully independent and capable and yet want you in their life are the best lovers, trust me. They have no ulterior motives, and even if they are lazy, that's okay too because if you have the time and resources to spare, it's not really a burden on you, and if you don't then you can tell them to do it and persuade them to get off their lazy and do it. I like category C people.

Chats with Courtney: Our Selfish Pursuit of Relationships

"Courtney" read my previous article with her in it and she was impressed and wanted to have another go at it, so she called to chat for a while and then I rewrote it and edited out the parts i didnt like--sorry, its not word-for-word, but its basically the same, and she approved of the final draft!

Courtney: What do you want to talk about?
Kyle: I want to hear your opinion on friendship--what do you think most people think about it?--basically, anything you can tell me about it.
C: wow, I didn't think you would put me on the spot like this; I was expecting something easy.
K: Don't worry, friend, you are the smartest woman I know, if you don't know what to say then it was a dumb question for me to have asked.
C: Ok. Well, I think people think friendship is highly desirable. --I've read your blog, I know what you say about love--well, I think that love is crucial for friendship, but maybe not necessary. What was it you said was love again?
K: Love is when you have a sincere interest in someone else's future--whether you are a part of it or not, you want them to succeed at whatever they devote their life to.
C: Right! So maybe that's what makes a best friend: someone who loves you and still sticks around.
K: So friendship is sticking around?
C: ...Maybe--Yes, that's what it is.
K: --And in your opinion most people desire friendship above many other things?
C: Absolutely. People talk about it all the time.--they tell you to marry your friend, that good friends are hard to come by, and everybody brags about how ideal their friendships are.
K: Interesting. Let me just relay everything back to you that you told me: Friendship is sticking around, and the best friendships are those where there is an aspect of sincere interest in the future of both people?
C: Sounds good. Are we done?
K: No, because I'm not satisfied.
C: About what?
K: Why do people ever leave? Doesn't that make them a bad friend?
C: Of course. But people don't care about whether they are a bad friend, just that they have good friends.
K: Isn't that a tad bit...selfish?
C: Yes, but everyone is that way.
K: Are you that way?
C: Of course--why do you think I asked to do this blog with you!--I want to be famous, I want to be heard, and you make me feel like my opinion matters.--Just kidding, don't write that (I did anyway!)
K: The Truth comes out!
C: --I tried to tell you this a few weeks ago when I said that you were "too helpful--" you're available for everyone, you care about people and you have a way of making people feel like you're interested in them.
K: Well, I am interested in them.
C: You definitely have the "sincerity" part down.--You are the ideal friend.
K: Now you're pushing the envelope, I'm trying to be serious!
C: Well, I AM being serious
K: Okay then, How do you know that I'm "the ideal friend?"
C: I just said it: You're smart, you're funny, you're available, you're a good listener and you're sincere, I can tell that you care--
K: --but how do you know if anyone else is?
C: You can tell--there's like a vibe that you get from people.
K: A vibe? haha, sorry but I don't believe in the mystical.
C: No, what I mean is that you connect--
K: --Again with the voodoo.
C: Ok, whatever. ... It's those things I mentioned: Being around you makes me feel like I'm heard. You ask me questions and you add to the conversation--we have actual conversations and I'm not just talking to myself.
K: Is that friendship?
C: No, I think that you can have all kinds of friends, friends who listen to you, friends who you hang out with for fun, friends who stimulate your mind and push you to think, friends who motivate you when you`re being lazy.
K: It almost sounds like you use your friends, Courtney....
C: Don't joke, I'm being serious!
K: No, hear me out and please don't take this offensively: those things you mentioned are all about you. --Do people ever have friends for the other person's sake?
C: That is an excellent question...I...almost want to say "no."
K: OK,THAT'S what I wanted to talk about--What's your reasoning, because I can think of a few reasons?
C: HAHahahahaha. <she literally laughed for 30 seconds> ...You lead me here this whole conversation.
K: So? Doesn't this illustrate my point that we use our friends?--No, really, do people ever have friends for the sake of their friend?
C: I don't think so. I think people have either an expectation to get something out of their friend or they get fed up with their friends and leave.
K: So then if someone is boring and useless they probably don't have friends?
C: If they don't have any money, then I think that is a fair statement.
K: --The other day my friend T told me people were too selfish to be the way they once were 100 years ago, and I refuse to believe that is the case. --I believe that they are more selfish, but not that they have to be--but like we talked about, I live in a fantasy world where I think people are more ideal than they really are.
C: Can we continue this later? This gives me a lot to think about

A few weeks later

K: Can we continue, I wrote up the first part of our conversation?
C: Ya, I've thought about it and I think that a lot of my friendships --I know it's bad of me to say this--are selfish relationships, but I realized there were a few that I would say are more "sympathy" relationships.
K: Can you define that for my blog?
C: Those would be relationships that you feel sorry for the person so you stick around and try to do things for them, like my friend B that I told you about who is trying to get out of drugs...
K: Ya, I told you to be careful because he's draining you.
C: That's not what you said but we can say that for your blog. He's "draining me," sure, but not really. I think he drains me in one way but not in others, if that makes sense. In other ways he makes me feel good about myself.
K: because you're better than him?
C: No, because I think I make a difference in his life and he tells me that--you have friends like that, I'm sure.
K: Fair enough, but do you see where this is leading?--It's leading to us a point where we have to say that the only reason we form relationships is because we're self-serving. We make friends like B who we are "Sympathetic" to, but really we get something out of it--we get the self-esteem boost that we're valued and that we help people. If you felt like your self-worth was amazing and you were highly valued do you think you would still be his friend?
C: Yes.
K: How so?
C: Because I am a sympathetic person. Because my conscious would feel bad if I didn't help someone that needed my help.
K: SEE!
C: ...shit. I see.
K (Courtney, I have to say it for the blog): You have that relationship because you have a need to not feel bad and to feel like you are helping people in need.
K: I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I think it's fine to only form relationships because you want to fulfill your needs, but I think a line needs be drawn when it comes to expectations and blame.
C: huh?
K: Expectations--when someone in a relationship expects something from you because they have been doing things for you. And Blame--when someone blames you for something that happened to them.
C: I don't follow...
K: Well, if you are dating two people at the same time and one is putting out and the other isn't and they find out about each other and you say, "Well, I wasn't really singling myself to either of you."
C: Ummm... Kyle? I don't think that is acceptable.
K: I don't see anything "wrong" with dating two people at the same time. Nor do I see a problem with having sex with multiple people--as long as they know that they aren't the only one.
C: That's where we differ, and if you venture into that territory you have to find your own path.
K: That's the thing! I have! See, it works like this: If we're all out to selfishly fill our own needs, and one of those needs is sex, and one person won't put out but another will, then I don't see anything wrong with that. But when the one who isn't putting out says, "I want to get serious" and she says she wants to take the relationship to another level and include sex and she doesn't know about the other one, then I have to tell her about the other one and I have to make a decision and hope that she isn't offended if I don't chose her or the other one get offended. Like...the expectation of girl A should be that if I haven't agreed to date only her or have sex with only her and if she hasn't asked me about it, then she should be okay with me having sex with people. My family is okay with it, you're okay with it, everyone's okay with it. But if Girl A hasn't put any thought into it that maybe I'm seeing other people or maybe I'm having sex with other people, I shouldn't be penalized for her not thinking about it--for her having ungrounded expectations, I shouldn't be blamed.
C: I understand now, and even though I don't agree with these principles because I'm married and love my husband and wouldn't cheat on him, I'll go along with your argument.
K: So that's basically my point: that you shouldn't have expectations of the relationship--if girl A is just a friend, she shouldn't have expectations that I can just drop everything the moment she wants more. ANNNNNnnd. I shouldn't be blamed by Girl A for her finding out about Girl B. If anything, Girl B could blame me for cutting her off, but not really because that would be her expecting me to keep her as my only sex partner when I wouldn't agree to something like that unless she was a 'real' girlfriend.
C: You're such a cheater. No wonder you haven't gotten married.
K: Don't be silly. I've never cheated in my life.
C: This sure sounds like it.
K: It's not. I am very faithful and very upfront about this aspect of my life if I have sex with someone I make a point to ask them if they're having sex with other people and inform them that I'm not having sex with anyone else somewhere along the line in our conversation leading up to it.
C: So it's not cheating then?
K: No, it's not cheating unless you agree to certain rules about not having sex with other people or not getting emotionally attached to other people or who knows what else.--and then you have to break those rules.
C: This is very risque--it sounds like you're justifying cheating.
K: I'm not! And besides, if we form relationships to meet our needs and those needs aren't being met, what do you suggest people do?
C: Not cheat! --break up before you cheat!
K: That seems like nonsense. You can't meet all of your needs with just one person.
C: Maybe you can't.
K: --I don't know if you're saying that I have incredibly complex needs, or if you're saying that because you're married your husband meets ALL of your needs.
C: Yes.
K: Ok...both--If your husband meets all of your needs then you don't need friends and you definitely don't need to talk to me ever--so why do you then, because that breaks our little theory about forming relationships to fulfill needs--AND, I will knowingly admit that I have complex needs that I doubt one person could fulfill on their own unless they were a goddess.
C: At least you admit it--I suppose...that I could admit too that my husband doesn't meet ALL of my needs, but he meets the important ones.
K: Fair enough. And that's what you ask for, isn't it? --a husband who meets the important needs, and friends who pick up the slack everywhere else? --I have to hand it to your husband, he's a great guy for letting you talk to me. Really. I'm being honest. I like him even though I don't really know him.
C: You're welcome to hang out with him if you'd like, but he's into things you probably aren't.
K: That's okay. Besides, I think he'd be the one to decide if I was "welcome to hang out with him"
C: You have my permission. Not that it means anything. He's an adult and can do what he wants.
K: Can we agree on those two things then: That we form relationships to fill our needs, and that we shouldn't have expectations unless we specifically talk about things first?
C: Yes, but I don't know why you invited me to talk and then you made all of the points and changed my mind.
K: Sorry, in the future I'll let you say something--that is...if you'll do this again?
C: I will, but next time I'm going to pick the topic and try to lead you to agree with me.

Modern Marriage: Part 3

PART 1 PART 2

------Part 3: Change in Marriage -----------

What is it about the word Marriage that conjures strong emotions for everyone? Some people look at it with anxiety, as though it is a burden in their life. Others look at it with hatred, thinking that it somehow ruined their life. Some look at marriage with fear, because the thought of taking responsibility for another person threatens their very way of life. Then there are those who see marriage as a happy thing. No matter who you are, hearing the word Marriage puts you in an emotional place.
The truth of the matter is that marriages don't work for one reason and one reason only: One or both people change and one or both people decide not to work it out. No one who seriously begins a marriage expects their marriage to fail at some point, yet many marriages so fall apart. Those who have been through divorces will give you an unlimited number of reasons for why their marriage didn't work, but in the end, their reasons fizzle down to one argument: they decided they were done--either because the other person was done first, or because they choose to be done before their spouse.
 We live in an age where free will and agency ought to be respected. We have it in ourselves to make any kind of decisions we want to so long as we are comfortable with the outcomes and possible outcomes. Some people might argue and say, "he started it" or "she started it when he/she did X" and will tell you that it left them no other option than to leave. But even that is a very narrow perspective of what really happened and it is an attempt on one or both people to avoid the consequences of their action. On the other side of the spectrum, we hear comments like, "our marriage ended because we both have problems." But this response refuses to confront the real issue: that the speaker's ignorance (or selfishness) saw the other person's problems as too burdensome to accommodate or their own problems too personal to ask for help from their partner.

Change
Marriages--or relationships for that matter--don't end until you choose to let them. Instead, they morph and change. Human beings have the greatest potential for adaptation out of any other living organism, and their relationships are evidence of it. If we are to understand the workings of a modern marriage we have to study change because marriage implies sticking with the other person whether we change or they change (isn't that the premise of the marital vows?).
The decision to divorce is really simple: Do you want to compensate for the changes you make within yourself and/or the other person, or do you want to try to manage internal/external changes on your own?

Change happens both internally and externally to one's self. Internal change is any change that occurs because we make or fail to make a decision. External change happens when other people, the environment, society, or anything else makes a decision that triggers a chain of events that affect the marriage. One example of internal change would be overcoming a long-crippling fear [such as of heights] that ultimately brings you more confidence in yourself and your own decisions to the point that you no longer need to rely on your partner for assistance in making decisions. Your partner would then experience external change, because s/he has no control over this decision you are making to handle your own affairs on your own. He or she is effected when s/he suddenly senses less involvement and inclusion in your life and feels less appreciated because you no longer involve them in your life. The logical pattern is as follows: 1. you overcome your fears and become more confident. 2. your partner's role in your life diminishes because you don't need his/her input or support as much. 3. S/he is forced to change as well to compensate for their diminished roles.
[This is why having a baby (I.e. gaining new responsibilities) can cause conflict in a relationship. Or why when one partner returns to school and then the work field can cause strain on a marriage because of the changes in the relationship dynamics.]

Collaborative Change
Does Modern Marriage require one individual to yield to the other when he or she changes? This logical question flows naturally when you pair change with marriage: if marriage means staying together regardless of how the other person changes, then in every instance of conflict triggered by change either one side will accept the change in the other person and/or ignore it and go along with it, or the marriage will fall apart.--I am thinking of the example of when one spouse gets a promotion at work that would require them to move and the other has to give up their career in order to go with them.
The problem with this question is that it is strictly black and white and not easily answered.

People tend to focus on the upper layer of their lives rather than the foundation. The spouse above might be thinking they are taking a loss by giving up their career for their spouse, but that is only on the surface.
Underneath, there is more to this story: The conflict isn't really about person A gaining a better job and person B losing theirs, the things that are at stake are Person A sees an opportunity to make more money and improve the quality of life for A and B, they also see an opportunity to gain greater purpose in life for themselves because the new position puts them in an important role in the company; the list goes on... Person B really isn't facing a loss of a job, they are facing the fear that they will have to change, they are facing the fear that they won't find another job equal or better in the new place. They are facing feelings of insignificance because their present job provides them with a sense of purpose and if they lose their job they lose something to invest themselves in; person B's list also goes on...
When we crack open the outer layer we discover that the inner layers are much more easily managed. If person B can confront their fear of not finding an equal/better job in the new location, can find new things to make them feel significant (which might be other pursuits, like humanitarian efforts, new projects, etc), and whatever else they are facing, then the opportunity for a promotion suddenly isn't so bad. The change isn't so daunting when we realize that there are more decisions on the table than we initially thought in our black and white world. Alternatively, person A can remain in their position, find other things to feel more purposeful, and other methods to improve their quality of life without additional money, such as taking up a new hobby or expanding their network. The options are endless.

In a marriage, yes, both partners agree to stay together--till death or till forever, it doesn't matter.--but what they are really agreeing to is that when change happens they will collaborate together on how to manage that change. Collaboration implies that both parties find a solution that works for both of them. Sometimes this is a long, frustrating, even maddening process, but in the end both spouses walk away from the situation satisfied. And really, the frustrating part of collaboration isn't the other person, it's within ourselves--it's when we get so set on the black and white that we refuse to exercise our creativity enough to realize that there are other things at stake under the surface. This is bad. This is the one and only cause of divorce: when one person in the marriage decides that their perspective is all white and their spouse's perspective is all black.

 Marriage is the agreement to make decisions together. Along with everything from part 1 and part 2, if the marriage is to last, it will require collaboration when making decisions and openness about changes that are occurring. Most divorces are unnecessary when you realize that they are caused by conflicts on the surface that never touch the root of the problem.

If you haven't read them already, read: PART 1 PART 2

Part 4 Coming soon!