Walking to Van, crosswalk:
Gabe! Scott! Wait at the corner! (Gas station at that corner with driveway immediately adjacent to crosswalk; as pedestrians cross cars coming from our left are allowed to turn left, often heading for that gas station driveway.) Gabe! Wait! damn it
Felix, Scott, Mia, Gabe. Everyone here. Cross driveway safely. Now let them run, except for Mia, carrying her stuffed pink whatever, talking nonstop: We built a snowman. did you build a snowman? I wear my red mittens when it's cold. I like my red mittens. Do you like red mit..."
Gabe! Scott! Felix! Come back, the van is back here!
That's a nice lamb, Mia.
It's not a lamb; it's a poodle.
Figures. I've already been barking like a dog and am probably in for more of the same.
Unlock it! Unlock it!
click
I'm sitting here; no I'm sitting here because I want to sit next to Scott.
OK, fine, that means I get to keep the Bionicles comic book.
Everyone clicked in? Seatbelts?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Oh boy! We're going on the freeway! Yay! The freeway! Freeeeeeee-way!
I'm hungry.
chuckle
What's so funny!
Something in the comics.
Let me see, let me see, let me see!
In a minute.
Come on, let me see!
I wish we could stop at Subway and pick something up! I had breakfast but I walked a half mile to school this morning and so I'm hungry.
Tricky merge ahead of a bottleneck downstream. Blind spots in van. Blinker on, checking and rechecking.
MEANIE!!!!!
eye-twitch Slip into open slot between dumptruck and sports car. Look for another slot to merge over one more lane because the two right lanes must exit. Around, everyone is doing the same. Some trying to get to the far right lane from the far left. Do I take the opening next to me or is someone from two lanes over on the left angling for it...can't quite see signal...
I was going to give it to you when I'm finished but I don't really want to now because you called me a name and shouted at me.
I hope Billy has little juice boxes for snacks. I hope he brought those and has...
Arghhhhh!!!!!!!!!
damn
Look, Felix, Gabe said he'll give you the magazine when he's done with it. If he's not done with it before we get to OMSI, you shall have it on the return trip, I promise.
...granola bars
Stop light. Restaurant. Garlic smell.
I smell Pizza. Oh, yes, pizza! Pizza! It smells good!
It's torture.
Yeah, it's torture!
When we went to Nebraska we went to a waterpark.
There's a place to eat!
A waterpark.
I wonder what Billy brought.
We went to a waterpark.
Wasn't it cold in Nebraska in December?
Let me see that marker.
I had a swim suit.
My marker!
My father and I went down a tube three times.
I'm keeping it because you pushed it in my face.
Give me back my marker Felix!
It's not your marker.
It's my marker!
No it's not; it's MINE
I brought it from my pencil box!
It is Gabe's, Scott. I saw him bring it from the classroom.
Give me back my marker!
Not until you apologize for pushing your marker in my face!
Scott'smom, he has my marker
hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY! everybody sing hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY! hunGRY!
He doesn't get it back until he says he's sorry!
I'm thirsty.
I hope he's brought the apple granola bars.
Even though I had some water at school I'm still thirsty.
I don't like the OMNIMAX. I'm scared of it.
It probably won't be scary this time (are there things to scare us in a film about the Nile River?)
OK, fine, you can KEEP the marker!
It wasn't enough.
We have to keep together in the parking lot. Look. There is a car backing up. You must stay with me. Gabe! Scott! Why are you running when I just said stay together?
I'm really really hungry.
Sidewalk. Relative safety. Relax radar a bit.
Headache. Other parent drivers dodging the movie. Didn't dodge soon enough...decide to stay in theater to help with adult/kid ratio; reassure Scott.
The trouble with the Omnimax is the misuse of power. Because they can give a visceral experience, they insist on shocking with it. So, in the last experience, "The Human Body," the camera has you gazing into a perfectly still eyeball, and then suddenly hyperaccelerates you through the iris, past the retina, along the optic nerve and slam into the visual cortex of the brain with no warning. Accompanied by an escalation of the intrusive volume of soundtrack. Scott hasn't forgotten this. Neither have I.
The feature this day is an adventure story: the first raft and kayak descent of the (Blue) Nile River from its source at Lake Tana in Ethiopia (this is the largest of the two major forks, contributing 80% of the flow. The other fork, the White Nile, originates in southern Rawanda. They meet in Khartoum, Sudan.). Scott's class has been studying ancient Egypt, and part of the theme of the movie is the river's historical role in the lives of various civilizations extending to this day. So there's some connection with their classwork.
This omnimax experience is a great improvement over the last. One has the feeling of flying above the river, sometimes skimming the surface and sometimes high above. Of course they can't resist throwing in some stomach-wrenching banks and dives. Several times when the camera was obviously in the bow of the raft, bouncing through major rapids, careening toward and then spinning away from rocks and holes, I closed my eyes to minimize the queasiness. Still, this was an experience of the Nile I would never have imagined. It makes you realize how strongly our visual sense dominates what we perceive.
It was very cool. I'm glad I stayed. Scott pronounced it the "best movie ever."
Ah, but there was still the journey back to the school--another aural experience I could do without. I was glad to be rid of the lot of them.
Yes, I do. I do hate children, I do.
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sunday, July 27, 2008
True Self
Maybe a year ago I had a dream of constructing some sort of flying vehicle. It was very beautiful, with a sort of bubble, like a helicopter cockpit where I sat. Its construction was finished, and I was receiving instruction in flying it. My instructor was not visible to me, but I heard her voice. I think I may have mastered the basics, of moving up and down and sideways. Now I was moving in a slightly more advanced realm. I was feeling how small subtle shifts affected my position, and how I could use those to gain skill. There was a feeling of a barrier that I was crossing, into, and out of, something. It was a boundary of sorts, and I was practicing negotiating it. I had an unease about whether or not I was trespassing, yet I felt that since I was not doing more than crossing the boundary, using it as a training tool, it was ok. I hoped that was true anyway.
Reading Scattered, by Gabor Mate´, I'm reminded of that dream.
He talks about the basic skill of self-regulation. The ability to maintain a stable inner environment despite fluctuations without. This is the foundation for being able to attend, and to learn. Perhaps self-soothing is another skill, which is even more basic than self-regulation. These are the first skills an infant learns, in the presence of an attuned adult. To learn this skill requires a caregiver who is self-regulated to the point where his/her self is stable despite stressors. This is not a person who is free of anxiety, but is able to tolerate his/her own anxiety.
In watching children operate, especially toddlers around desired objects, I've been sensitive to fluctuations of anxiety: the children's, and my own corresponding. Will my child get what his heart is so desiring right now? In the meantime I see the child who is in possession of the toy responding to the anxiety of the other children with anxiety of his own: will it be taken away? It's mine! The anxiety of the other children increases the desirability of the object many-fold. Some children can't tolerate the feeling: they cry, or they hit. Some children are able to relinquish their desire and move on. Others respond to distraction. Some absolutely can not.
The mother can soothe her child to the extent that she is able to maintain her calm center, her inner temperature despite the rising temperature outside. Adding to the heat are the thoughts: will my child get a turn with this toy? Look how many children are clamoring for it. My child wants it so much! Look how sad she is! What will the other moms do? How will they handle it? Are they judging my child for screaming? Are they judging me because he's screaming? What if he hits someone? I feel self-conscious responding when there are other parents around. Will this kid EVER give up the toy? Look at him hoard it. I HATE him! Look, I can see on the faces of the other moms that they're also concerned that THEIR child get a chance. How can I advocate for my child without being overbearing?
This was the kind of scenario I knew came with the parenting territory, knew was coming when I held my infant in my arms, and dreaded. Parenting-In-Public.
Fortunately, I found a group of moms who were able to hold their centers stable while negotiating these rough waters, and I learned from them. I also learned that children's heart's desires are often fickle, and even if they were heartbroken over something one moment, they were indifferent to it the next.
So the point is well taken that parents who can maintain a serene inner temperature when things are turbulent outside can best teach their children the same skill. This is the foundation of the child developing a stable Self, and the ability to regulate It.
From what Mate´writes it appears that this is essential for the child to develop the brain structures that will affect his ability to learn, to attend, to focus and direct that attention at will, in her future. These neural pathways are laid down in the presence of this safe, undisturbed-by-anxiety core. The agent is the attunement of the parent. These are the conditions that are required for optimum development of these structures.
The features of ADD, immaturity, hyperactivity, inattentiveness, are all normal stages of development that a child passes through. In the absence of the optimal conditions for development a normal stage becomes a state.
This resonates with an intuition I've had, that the tension between Gary and I has been counter-productive to the emotional well-being of our sons. I realize that considering this is flirting with a 'blame-the-parent' (particularly the mother) mentality. However, I do not read blame in Mate´'s writing. I don't feel defensive, because I've been feeling this is intuitively true all along. Perhaps also there is hope in Mate´'s message: development is not static. The human brain is always developing, well into old age.
As I read his description of a stable inner Self, and the skill of Self regulation, his analogy of the warm and cold blooded animals broke open a door and light shone in. There are adults in my life who are cold-blooded animals emotionally. It's not that they're cold people, it's that they require others around them to adjust the environment to their comfort level. Their sense of Self and their well-being are dependent on the conditions outside of them, and they can only tolerate a small level of fluctuation. And it seems perfectly natural to them to expect others around them to accommodate them.
My mother is one of these people. To a lesser extent, so is my father. Gary is, and to a much greater extent so is his mother. Their sense of Self is fragile, and vulnerable to collapse in the face of disagreement and disappointment. In fact, there's a way that my life has been in service to people like this, my objections felt like selfishness to me. I wonder if other people have had this experience?
Anyway, reading Scattered, I felt a place inside. Almost a physical place, It was like a space, perhaps a potential space that has always existed, but I didn't know was there. Now I feel a Presence inside there. Unconsciously, I've been breathing into It. I've found myself breathing into It in potential anxiety situations: driving on the freeway: will there be an opening when I need to take my exit?
And then I think of the dream. So perhaps this is my vehicle, my flying vehicle. I've been constructing It with Sharon, my mentor, and I'm learning how to fly. Learning the basics, and now ready to begin acquiring some skill.
Reading Scattered, by Gabor Mate´, I'm reminded of that dream.
He talks about the basic skill of self-regulation. The ability to maintain a stable inner environment despite fluctuations without. This is the foundation for being able to attend, and to learn. Perhaps self-soothing is another skill, which is even more basic than self-regulation. These are the first skills an infant learns, in the presence of an attuned adult. To learn this skill requires a caregiver who is self-regulated to the point where his/her self is stable despite stressors. This is not a person who is free of anxiety, but is able to tolerate his/her own anxiety.
In watching children operate, especially toddlers around desired objects, I've been sensitive to fluctuations of anxiety: the children's, and my own corresponding. Will my child get what his heart is so desiring right now? In the meantime I see the child who is in possession of the toy responding to the anxiety of the other children with anxiety of his own: will it be taken away? It's mine! The anxiety of the other children increases the desirability of the object many-fold. Some children can't tolerate the feeling: they cry, or they hit. Some children are able to relinquish their desire and move on. Others respond to distraction. Some absolutely can not.
The mother can soothe her child to the extent that she is able to maintain her calm center, her inner temperature despite the rising temperature outside. Adding to the heat are the thoughts: will my child get a turn with this toy? Look how many children are clamoring for it. My child wants it so much! Look how sad she is! What will the other moms do? How will they handle it? Are they judging my child for screaming? Are they judging me because he's screaming? What if he hits someone? I feel self-conscious responding when there are other parents around. Will this kid EVER give up the toy? Look at him hoard it. I HATE him! Look, I can see on the faces of the other moms that they're also concerned that THEIR child get a chance. How can I advocate for my child without being overbearing?
This was the kind of scenario I knew came with the parenting territory, knew was coming when I held my infant in my arms, and dreaded. Parenting-In-Public.
Fortunately, I found a group of moms who were able to hold their centers stable while negotiating these rough waters, and I learned from them. I also learned that children's heart's desires are often fickle, and even if they were heartbroken over something one moment, they were indifferent to it the next.
So the point is well taken that parents who can maintain a serene inner temperature when things are turbulent outside can best teach their children the same skill. This is the foundation of the child developing a stable Self, and the ability to regulate It.
From what Mate´writes it appears that this is essential for the child to develop the brain structures that will affect his ability to learn, to attend, to focus and direct that attention at will, in her future. These neural pathways are laid down in the presence of this safe, undisturbed-by-anxiety core. The agent is the attunement of the parent. These are the conditions that are required for optimum development of these structures.
The features of ADD, immaturity, hyperactivity, inattentiveness, are all normal stages of development that a child passes through. In the absence of the optimal conditions for development a normal stage becomes a state.
This resonates with an intuition I've had, that the tension between Gary and I has been counter-productive to the emotional well-being of our sons. I realize that considering this is flirting with a 'blame-the-parent' (particularly the mother) mentality. However, I do not read blame in Mate´'s writing. I don't feel defensive, because I've been feeling this is intuitively true all along. Perhaps also there is hope in Mate´'s message: development is not static. The human brain is always developing, well into old age.
As I read his description of a stable inner Self, and the skill of Self regulation, his analogy of the warm and cold blooded animals broke open a door and light shone in. There are adults in my life who are cold-blooded animals emotionally. It's not that they're cold people, it's that they require others around them to adjust the environment to their comfort level. Their sense of Self and their well-being are dependent on the conditions outside of them, and they can only tolerate a small level of fluctuation. And it seems perfectly natural to them to expect others around them to accommodate them.
My mother is one of these people. To a lesser extent, so is my father. Gary is, and to a much greater extent so is his mother. Their sense of Self is fragile, and vulnerable to collapse in the face of disagreement and disappointment. In fact, there's a way that my life has been in service to people like this, my objections felt like selfishness to me. I wonder if other people have had this experience?
Anyway, reading Scattered, I felt a place inside. Almost a physical place, It was like a space, perhaps a potential space that has always existed, but I didn't know was there. Now I feel a Presence inside there. Unconsciously, I've been breathing into It. I've found myself breathing into It in potential anxiety situations: driving on the freeway: will there be an opening when I need to take my exit?
And then I think of the dream. So perhaps this is my vehicle, my flying vehicle. I've been constructing It with Sharon, my mentor, and I'm learning how to fly. Learning the basics, and now ready to begin acquiring some skill.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Breather
Made it past the two early hurdles of summer break: Connor's and Scott's birthdays. Scott's birthday was an eternal now, since he'd been talking about it for weeks, maybe even months ahead of the fact. One bump in that road was a week ahead of his planned bowling party, invitations all sent, he changed his mind and wanted a slumber party like Connor had had. He was inconsolable to be told that it was too late to change plans. After a tumultuous 15 or 20 minutes or so a middle way came to me (sometimes I'm capable of inspiration): his party was on a Saturday, 2 days after the actual fact of his birthday. How about if one of his best friends came and had an overnight on the actual day of his birthday?
He brightened immediately, the storm clouds dispelled. I talked with the boy's parents; everyone was delighted.
So Scott's birthday passed easily, and then on to the bowling party ordeal.
I don't know if I've mused in here about how active, maybe somewhat hyper-active children seem to gravitate toward each other. They clump, where their combined energy is far more than its sum. All of Scott's friends are highly energetic; he gravitates toward these children. There was a full complement of them at his party; my worries about sparse attendance dispelled (though not until 8:00pm the night before did I know that more than 2 children were coming. The RSVP tag means nothing.). These kids simply take up a ton of room. Fortunately, we were at a bowling alley with easy-going management, and no bowlers on the lanes on either side of us. It was a 'Cosmic' party, which meant mirror balls, black lights, neon flashing, fog. Our group of kids spilled into the spaces adjacent to our lane and tables, dancing wildly to the music. It would have been a problem had there been bowlers hemming our party; but they were free to seek their own borders.
The fee for the birthday party included decorations and balloons, pizza and soda, one game. I'd fretted that one game wouldn't be enough to fill the 2 and a half hours allotted, but that worry was dispelled too. The way these kids threw the balls meant an eternity of meandering from bumper to bumper, a leisurely journey to the pins. These balls were traveling as slowly as is possible without outright stoppage. It was an eternal game.
One crisis when Gary inexplicably chose the most sensitive of the boys to holler at, "Felix! Throw the ball!" The din in this alley made yelling appropriate, but the timing was unfortunate in that it was coincident with a lull in the background noise so it seemed sharper than Gary intended. I jumped myself. I'm afraid the poor child experienced it as being singled out and probably felt assaulted. He collapsed into tears and it took several minutes of ministrations from his father to calm him down to the point where he could take his turn again. He did rebound in the space of time that it took for 5 boys to bowl ahead of him.
I've been spending the few days since the party recovering. The noise in my head is still too loud to settle on a theme to make observations on, so I've been bending my efforts to transcribing old diaries.
Oh, my vacant head.
He brightened immediately, the storm clouds dispelled. I talked with the boy's parents; everyone was delighted.
So Scott's birthday passed easily, and then on to the bowling party ordeal.
I don't know if I've mused in here about how active, maybe somewhat hyper-active children seem to gravitate toward each other. They clump, where their combined energy is far more than its sum. All of Scott's friends are highly energetic; he gravitates toward these children. There was a full complement of them at his party; my worries about sparse attendance dispelled (though not until 8:00pm the night before did I know that more than 2 children were coming. The RSVP tag means nothing.). These kids simply take up a ton of room. Fortunately, we were at a bowling alley with easy-going management, and no bowlers on the lanes on either side of us. It was a 'Cosmic' party, which meant mirror balls, black lights, neon flashing, fog. Our group of kids spilled into the spaces adjacent to our lane and tables, dancing wildly to the music. It would have been a problem had there been bowlers hemming our party; but they were free to seek their own borders.
The fee for the birthday party included decorations and balloons, pizza and soda, one game. I'd fretted that one game wouldn't be enough to fill the 2 and a half hours allotted, but that worry was dispelled too. The way these kids threw the balls meant an eternity of meandering from bumper to bumper, a leisurely journey to the pins. These balls were traveling as slowly as is possible without outright stoppage. It was an eternal game.
One crisis when Gary inexplicably chose the most sensitive of the boys to holler at, "Felix! Throw the ball!" The din in this alley made yelling appropriate, but the timing was unfortunate in that it was coincident with a lull in the background noise so it seemed sharper than Gary intended. I jumped myself. I'm afraid the poor child experienced it as being singled out and probably felt assaulted. He collapsed into tears and it took several minutes of ministrations from his father to calm him down to the point where he could take his turn again. He did rebound in the space of time that it took for 5 boys to bowl ahead of him.
I've been spending the few days since the party recovering. The noise in my head is still too loud to settle on a theme to make observations on, so I've been bending my efforts to transcribing old diaries.
Oh, my vacant head.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Back in the classroom
I remember how vulnerable I used to feel returning to a classroom after being away several days. I felt as if I'd gone to sleep and woke to a new world.
Billy's class is in the middle of a campaign. To illustrate participatory democracy a classroom project to elect a mascot commenced. Last week four characters were nominated. Today campaign posters were going to be made to extol the virtues and promises of the candidates.
I wonder if this would have had any meaning for Scott even if he had been in last week. It must have contributed to a sense of disorientation and isolation I think he feels anyway.
Four poster-sized sheets of paper were distributed. One group of children took the poster to a spot on the floor that also happens to be a walk-through. Scott was passing through the area.
Things just happen so fast, and conclusions are drawn so quickly. The children had let the paper slip to the floor, and the current of air it generated ruffled it. Scott was intrigued by this, as the edge floated over his shoes. He wiggled his feet to loft it up again. One boy spoke harshly: "Don't step on it!" and shoved him backward. Then he grabbed Scott's arm and moved him over to trade places and told Scott to 'go over there.'
Scott stared at him, with no hostility on his face. It seemed more like puzzlement. He gazed into Ben's eyes while Ben glared back at him. I walked over and asked Ben if he could find a nicer way to ask. Ben said, "He was stepping on the paper" and I said, "Then your request is, 'please don't step on the paper.' "
I'm looking at the incident as one of those exploded diagrams of machines that illustrate the anatomy and relationships of the whole and parts. I see that Scott was startled by the intensity of the response he'd received and he hadn't reacted to it in anger because he hadn't yet categorized it. He didn't know he had been disrespected. And with an open face he was looking to Ben for an explanation of what had just happened. Ben was all-too-ready to "tell" him: "You're stupid!" He didn't use those words, but there was contempt in his face. The way such a scenario usually unfolds is that child A's intentions are misunderstood, child B speaks sharply (and because child B is protective of his object his first response to a 'threat' is anger, and because he feels anger he assumes the other person is the source. If the other person is the source, then the other person must be wrong, bad, or "stupid." It seems very logical). Child A either 'gets it' that child B thinks he's stupid and gets angry back, or, if he's confused, waits for child B to 'explain'. Child B, still angry, does or says something to make the point clearer, that child B is defective. Child B internalizes this and may become angry in turn. It could come to blows. And it all happens so quickly. Trying to deconstruct it is like trying to separate baking soda and vinegar once the chemical reaction has begun
It occurs to me that there is a fulcrum point there where child A is defining the moment for child B as 'you're stupid and deserve me to talk to you like this.' Which means that on some level child B can accept this definition, or not. What typically happens is that child A's meaning is registered, and accepted, even as it is being angrily denied.
It seems such an obvious conclusion: if we're angry it's because someone else is the source. If we already assume someone is stupid, we're likely to perceive that they're being stupid again. We treat them that way, and their resentment for being treated that way predisposes them to act that way.
What I want to know is, is it possible to slow that moment down where one has the choice to internalize how an Other says we should define a situation? So instead of accepting and reacting to Ben's definition, can we instead say, 'wow, what's eating HIM? I'm not stupid, why is he talking to me this way?'
Too late I wonder if Scott was in a kind of limbo where his interpretation could have fallen in either direction--and by stepping in to correct Ben *I* actually pushed the definition to 'you were just disrespected'?
Billy's class is in the middle of a campaign. To illustrate participatory democracy a classroom project to elect a mascot commenced. Last week four characters were nominated. Today campaign posters were going to be made to extol the virtues and promises of the candidates.
I wonder if this would have had any meaning for Scott even if he had been in last week. It must have contributed to a sense of disorientation and isolation I think he feels anyway.
Four poster-sized sheets of paper were distributed. One group of children took the poster to a spot on the floor that also happens to be a walk-through. Scott was passing through the area.
Things just happen so fast, and conclusions are drawn so quickly. The children had let the paper slip to the floor, and the current of air it generated ruffled it. Scott was intrigued by this, as the edge floated over his shoes. He wiggled his feet to loft it up again. One boy spoke harshly: "Don't step on it!" and shoved him backward. Then he grabbed Scott's arm and moved him over to trade places and told Scott to 'go over there.'
Scott stared at him, with no hostility on his face. It seemed more like puzzlement. He gazed into Ben's eyes while Ben glared back at him. I walked over and asked Ben if he could find a nicer way to ask. Ben said, "He was stepping on the paper" and I said, "Then your request is, 'please don't step on the paper.' "
I'm looking at the incident as one of those exploded diagrams of machines that illustrate the anatomy and relationships of the whole and parts. I see that Scott was startled by the intensity of the response he'd received and he hadn't reacted to it in anger because he hadn't yet categorized it. He didn't know he had been disrespected. And with an open face he was looking to Ben for an explanation of what had just happened. Ben was all-too-ready to "tell" him: "You're stupid!" He didn't use those words, but there was contempt in his face. The way such a scenario usually unfolds is that child A's intentions are misunderstood, child B speaks sharply (and because child B is protective of his object his first response to a 'threat' is anger, and because he feels anger he assumes the other person is the source. If the other person is the source, then the other person must be wrong, bad, or "stupid." It seems very logical). Child A either 'gets it' that child B thinks he's stupid and gets angry back, or, if he's confused, waits for child B to 'explain'. Child B, still angry, does or says something to make the point clearer, that child B is defective. Child B internalizes this and may become angry in turn. It could come to blows. And it all happens so quickly. Trying to deconstruct it is like trying to separate baking soda and vinegar once the chemical reaction has begun
It occurs to me that there is a fulcrum point there where child A is defining the moment for child B as 'you're stupid and deserve me to talk to you like this.' Which means that on some level child B can accept this definition, or not. What typically happens is that child A's meaning is registered, and accepted, even as it is being angrily denied.
It seems such an obvious conclusion: if we're angry it's because someone else is the source. If we already assume someone is stupid, we're likely to perceive that they're being stupid again. We treat them that way, and their resentment for being treated that way predisposes them to act that way.
What I want to know is, is it possible to slow that moment down where one has the choice to internalize how an Other says we should define a situation? So instead of accepting and reacting to Ben's definition, can we instead say, 'wow, what's eating HIM? I'm not stupid, why is he talking to me this way?'
Too late I wonder if Scott was in a kind of limbo where his interpretation could have fallen in either direction--and by stepping in to correct Ben *I* actually pushed the definition to 'you were just disrespected'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)