Welcome to the May 2007 edition of what it takes to be successful online. Brandon Peele presents Landmark Advanced Course posted at GT. Vadim presents How To Find A Certain Group Of NON-english Speaking People And How To Sell Them…

Here’s the problem with being blindingly committed to being nice to everyone, particularly online (a single comment can become “fact” rather quickly in this space): since there really ARE people who post incredibly inane, inaccurate and downright ludicrous information tolerating these people creates the same kind of environment that children are being subjected to in school (e.g., holistic education). “Bobby put forth such a nice effort at his multiplication tables; although time and again he said the seven times seven equals forty-two, he really tried hard. So I think it’s best to pass him…”

There are a few folks in the online recruiting circles I run in whose posting presence cause comments to drop or cease or worse yet, the discussions become hijacked to a place that enables the people to incessantly talk about themselves. With a percentage that approaches one ppm, no one says anything.

This is being nice.

At this point – and this has happened time and again – the people are told that they have moved far off point…now let the indignant repercussions begin! Over time, online participants “expect” these people to chime in and take over. Without someone to guide them – gentle doesn’t work (when will you realize this?) when someone has a personal agenda of pontification and self-promotion – these people become more brazen and outrageous to the point where no one wants to ever confront them for fear of the negativity that invariable arises.

Then there is being realistic (what some might refer to as not being nice).

Even when you call a spade a spade and this assessment is based upon real facts and intelligent analysis, the seven-times-seven-equals-forty-two-crowd responds by saying “why are you being so harsh on these people?”

Dave, I too an tolerant to a fault…until that fault line is crossed by people whose goal is to take over and not SHARE as others in the community do. This is the true litmus test – sharing versus pontification and self-promotion (which are signs of an ego kicking in).

As you noted, let the truth speak for itself. But don’t be afraid to take a stand.

The leadership instinct you are born with is the backbone. You develop the funny bone and the wishbone that go with it. ~ Elaine Agather

my thoughts and apologies for some overlap.

Comment (1):

The same type statistics/research also point to
projected increases in the number of heart
attacks, cancer incidents, obesity rates,
diabetes, suicides, spousal abuse incidents, etc.

However, that does not mean that I have to engage
in self-destructive behaviors that result in my
experiencing and hastening these events in my
life. I can choose what behaviors support me to
live a healthy lifestyle and which don’t. The
same is true for whether I choose to be civil or
uncivil, respectful or disrespectful, hurtful and
harmful or compassionate and understanding in my
relationships and interactions, on blogs, in
relationship, how I show up in the world.

The bottom line here, for me, is the degree to
which one is “conscious”. Whether I am
consciously aware of how I am and who I am or
just being completely unconscious, reactive, with
no conscious awareness. (see my posts, above.)

In a climate and culture where most are obsessed
with, and driven by, their ego need for control,
recognition and security, it’s no wonder that
most folks’ thoughts are “killing thoughts” as
opposed to “healing thoughts.” It’s all about me! Out of my way!

In a culture where many folks gain their sense of
identity (”who I am”) from a direct association
with their “information” (the database in their
brain), it’s no wonder that there is such
incivility and reactivity on blogs, and
elsewhere, as the mantra of so many is, “When you
disagree with my information, well, you disagree
with me”, and that’s just too much of a hit to
many folks’ egos…so they sense the need to
react (fight, as opposed to flee or freeze).
Agreeing to disagree is fast becoming a lost art form in Western cukture.

When folks are “unconscious” of how they are and
who they are (refusing to self-reflect) from the
inside out, the tendency is to associate and
behave with a herd mentality….witness the
vitriol, the high-pitch ever-escalating
disrespect, sarcasm (in the guise of “humor”),
mocking, bullying, that is taking the place of
so-called conversation and dialogue….thus the
statistics of why it’s going to get worse….the
herd and herd-like behaviors enlarge(s).

So, the research is what it is…that does not
mean I cannot choose how I want to be and who I
want to be in relationship, is dialogue, in conversation.

Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see.”
Rumi said, “Out beyond right-doing and
wrong-doing, there is a field, I’ll meet you there.”

Life, after all, is choices. Do I choose to be
conscious, and respectfully responsive or reactive, demeaning, defensive,…

How have I been so far today with my thoughts, my
words….? Conscious, thoughtful, self-reflective
“healing”?….or reactive, defensive, demeaning,
destructive, “killing”? ….Why?

Comment (2)

I’ve followed the “negativity of blog
discussions” mainly from the perspective of being
curious about the nature of the interactions of some of the participants.
For me in such circumstances, the behaviors are as interesting, if not more
so, than the content.

The quality of passion is often offered as an element that
may drive some to behave in a disrespectful and, perhaps, uncivil manner.
Passion, in my view, is never a “reason” to treat another
disrespectfully or in an uncivil manner. An, “excuse” perhaps, but a poor
one at that.

So, how do I view much of this exchange which has smatterings of
disrespect, vitriol, invective and disrespect?

My take on much of the negative and disrespectful
go-between and interactions in blog (and just
about every other type of interaction these days)
has to do with how one relates to another human
being. For me, life is all about relationship,
and the manner in which one chooses to,
consciously or unconsciously, relate to, “meet”,
“see” and accept another person. What I
experience in the seeming “conflict” in many of
the exchanges around the ” negativity issue” is a
failure to relate to another individual in an
accepting, compassionate, allowing manner that transcends simple “information.”

So, what I experience is the manner in which some individuals are driven to
look at another person from the perspective of (1) “It’s not about the
content.” and (2) “It’s all about the content.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) It’s not about the content
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this perspective, what I perceive is a need for some individuals to
resort to a verbally abusive and bullying approach in an effort to
“connect” with another person. For others there seems to be a need to first
engage, and then disengage, engage and disengage, as in a “love-hate”
relationship, in order to stay in the game.

In the arena of psychodynamics or ego psychology, this type of behavior is
referred to as “negative merging.” In some relationships, in this dynamic,
the only way two people can “merge” (or feel merged) is by fighting;
arguing is what allows them to “connect”; otherwise there would be no
connection at all, no real relationship. Thus, the need to bully, argue,
and fight…here, verbally. It keeps some engaged and merged. It’s really
has nothing to do with the “information.”

It’s about connecting and needing to feel “seen” and “heard”. To be
someone. Else, some of these folks feel that have no value or worth. The
only downside is that it comes from a place of anger, fear and negativity.

In such relationships, acceptance, approval, and satisfaction is lacking
from a mutual loving and caring and compassionate perspective; so, the only
way the two can have any connection at all is from this place of negative
merging and, as in some cases I read here, it’s in the form of poking,
being disrespectful, being uncivil, nit-picking, fault-finding, etc.

In negative-merged relationships, such back-and-forth behavior, and
emotional acting out, is the sole source of contact between the two parties
and in negative-merged relationships, negative contact is better than no
contact.

So content aside, two such “discussants” are no different than a couple who
argue and fight over how to stack the dishes in the dishwasher, fold the
laundry, or vacuum the car. or slice the turkey. However, it’s never really
about the “content” per se. It’s about the need to be “seen” and connect
when there’s no true feeling of connectedness, albeit online.

Until and unless the partners in the negative-merged relationship expand
their awareness and explore what’s truly “underneath” the surface that
drive one to be so immersed in fault-finding (e.g., by exploring one’s
self-images, beliefs, preconceptions, “wiring” about how one comes to view
oneself vis-ŕ-vis the world and others), there’s probably never going to be
a resolution. So, they’ll fight, lick their wounds, go away and come back
to fight another day (i.e., the next “discussion”). The famous radio show
“The Bickersons” comes to mind. Always at one another’s throat. Always
argumentative, bickering, poking, criticizing…. For some, it’s the only
way they know how to “connect.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(2) Content is everything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The ego-personality is driven by one’s inner judge and critic, the inner
voice that continually creates drama and upset in everything we do, that
never allows us to truly feel at peace with ourselves. This inner judge and
critic is driven by three major ego needs: control, security and recognition.

So, driven consistently and relentlessly by these three needs, many of us
derive our identity, that is, “who I am”, and “who I take myself to be”
from “things”, from externals, as opposed to experiencing ourselves with a
true integrity and authenticity that comes from being in touch with our
Inner Nature, True and Real Self, from “Inside”.

In experiencing this discussion, what I sense is some folks who define
themselves by their “information.” For some, the mantra is, “I am my
information.” In other words, my identity, who I am, is defined on what I
have in my brain, my database.

So, what I experience here is that sometimes when one individual disagrees
with another, rather than simply see the other’s information as a
“perspective”, or just “different information,”
(it’s only information, words), it
seems to become absolutely critical for one to view the other’s information
as a “position” and, as a result, one needs to view the other’s position as
a direct “attack on me.”

In our culture of right-wrong, good-bad, win-lose,
me-you, there’s seems to be less and less room for acceptance of “different
information” and more of a need to engage in some type of escalating
personal attack to survive. Some people’s lives seem to depend on “I’m
right” in some way, shape or form.

And so when these few feel they are attacked, because someone has
“different information”, these few feel out control, insecure, and
unrecognized. “My God, I have no identity if my information is “wrong’.”

And in this state of conscious or unconscious, anger, fear, worry and in
this state of feeling “small”, unseen, invisible, unrecognized,
unappreciated, and being resistant, defensive and agitated, and feeling a
loss of control, recognition or emotional security, (all in order to
“survive” and be somebody), some need to act out in a manner that they
feel will allow them to see themselves as big, large, to be somebody, to
have an identity.

It might be interesting to explore how I’m reacting, acting out, and
projecting, etc., and why I feel I need to attack, defend and
counter-attack. Why I am so caught up in identifying with “my information.”

What I experience here is no different from what I experience in my
experience coaching individuals and couples every day, at work, at home and
at play. What I experience here are the same behaviors that manifest when
folks allow their ego-personalities and ” comparative-judgmental minds” to
get in the way of a healthy relationship, a healthy dialogue, a healthy
interaction. What I sometimes experience here is the type of reactivity
that occurs when one is driven by one’s need for control, recognition and
security as opposed to coming from one’s Inner Plane where when one is
perfectly comfortable with who one is and where one is, right here, right now.

For me, the poking, the disrespect, the vitriol
and incivility is all about resistance,
denial and projecting. It’s all about not being “consciously conscious of
“Who I am” and “How I am” in relationship; rather the negativity comes from
one’s locking on to cruise control, being “unconscious” and simply reacting
to everything happening “outside”. It’s about needing to look “outside” for
what’s lacking “inside.”

While some may see (conscious or unconscious) ad hominem attacks, rudeness,
disrespect, poking, bullying and the like as “common” in discussions and
relationships, they are not, for children or for adults, and sometimes it’s
hard to tell the difference. Reactive elements create mental, emotional and
even perhaps physical pain, and discomfort and suffering for the actual and
“ringside” participants and observers, even though they may not even be
aware of it. This discord does take a toll…one way or another.

Where I think some would like to honestly and
sincerely offer their perspectives in a safe
environment, they may be wary of doing so as they
“lurk” in an environment where others have a conscious, and more likely
unconscious, need to “take it personally” and
react to “different” takes and information in a
negative, poking, rejecting manner; they have a
conscious, and more likely unconscious, need to
“take it personally” and so render basically
informative and worthy discussions as so much
“noise” and argumentation in the process, thus
making the group or forum seem unsafe for so many
others. Honesty and safety also allow
vulnerability and my sense is few would want to
disclose and feel vulnerable in a setting such as this. Unfortunate.

So,

Perhaps I can envision and then act to create an environment where I can
notice, accept and appreciate the uniqueness of another’s perspective
without automatically jumping on the “me-you”, “right-wrong”, “good-bad”
“expert-novice” continuum.

Perhaps I can take some time to move out of my intellectual zip code of
what I know, and explore the perhaps, more foreign, landscape of “crucial
conversations” and “non-violent communication” (books by these same names)
to enhance the quality of some of my interactions
and dialogue here. Approaching the discussion
with the curiosity of a “beginner’s mind”, a neutral mind.

Perhaps I can take a deep breath, sense my self, sense into my body and
sense my emotions, before responding to a post and consciously ask my self
why I would choose to be disrespectful, uncivil and harm another person
simply because their “information” is different from my “information.”

To paraphrase Pogo, (”We have met the enemy; and he is us.); I have met the
“problem” and it is me.

As Rumi says, “Out beyond right doing and wrong doing, there is a field;
I’ll meet you there.”

I can choose to play in that field with my colleagues; or I can choose to
create and fight in a battlefield of words, of ego and lost identity. One
brings happiness, collegiality, contentment and well-being, the other
brings pain and suffering, mentally, emotionally, physically, socially, and
spiritually.

So, what’s happening here is no different from
what happens among partners and couples every day
at home, at work and at play. Especially when
individuals allow their ego-personalities and
“judgmental minds” to get in the way of a healthy
relationship, first to one’s self, and then to other.

It’s all about “resistance”, denial and
projecting. It’s all about not being “consciously
conscious” of how we “are” in relationships but
rather lock on to cruise control and simply react
to everything happening “outside” us. It’s all
about the need for control, recognition and
security that one is most often lacking “inside”
and needs to go “outside” to find.

What I see is a desperate need for control,
recognition and security that manifests itself in
the old bromide, “I’d rather be right than
happy.” Or, “I have to be somebody at the
expense of being seen as a nobody.” And, “to have
this sense of my self, it has to be at your expense.”

For what end? To what end?

Peace,
Peter Vajda, Ph.D., C.P.C.

SpiritHeart
Integrated Coaching & Practices
for Essential Well-BE-ing
Values-Based Coaching, Counseling and Training
Mind-Body-Emotion-Spirit Integration
Atlanta, GA, USA; 770-804-9125; mailto:pvajda@spiritheart.net
“What makes you think work and meditation are two different things?”
­ Buddha at Work

Welcome to the November 12, 2006 edition of The Personal Development Carnival!
—
Jack Yoest presents Any PR is good, As Long As They Spell Your Name Right posted at Reasoned Audacity, saying, “When you tangle with print, radio, or visua…