Quote:
Originally Posted by America
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
this is not law. if a qualified peer acting in good faith, then perhaps yes.
i get triggered by this cliche 'cuz i used to hear my dad say it in relation his marriage going south -- that it always took two -- and it rang false. no, actually: one person has the agency required to destroy a partnership with a perfectly capable, dutiful mate. And one person has the agency to willfully scramble inputs from solid communique. Responsibility aint always 50-50.
|
there's a very clear distinction between failure to understand and failure to acknowledge. i don't believe most people engage one another with malicious intent. people have reasons for saying what they say and doing what they do. seeking to understand those is key to arriving at a common understanding. i totally agree that many are not at all capable of that and among those who are some are more capable than others. Generally though, I would place the greater burden of responsibility on whomever is more capable. This is all of course with regard to communication.
you are right though that a single individual can generate sufficient chaos to make the entire situation miserable for both. i dont think most do so on purpose though. it's just how they are and they've not been able to mature past it. it's understandable to get frustrated (we all do), but getting mad (we all do) about it isn't really fair or appropriate if they aren't capable of fully grasping what they've done. The latter does serve some utility in curbing the behavior if they are sufficiently receptive though.
12-10-2018, 02:07 PM
Linear Mode
