(no subject)

[quarrel]

So I'm with shaterri at a meat-and-cheese shop on Granville Island. He's just browsing for the moment, and asking some questions of one of the salespeople. She's rather curt. It's understandable. This is in Vancouver, so the place is swamped with sightseeing Olympic tourists, he hasn't bought anything yet, and she's got a thick accent (though I must point out this is not a part of Canada where people primarily speak French...in fact, it's one of the many parts that's quite the opposite). We eventually moved on with plans to come back and buy what we wanted closer to our exit time.

We get a different salesperson when we return. The first woman is still there, and while she's idle between customers and our active vendor was weighing one of our purchases, Shaterri pulls the kind of stunt I only dream of.

He says something pleasant and light-hearted to her.

You can probably guess what happens next. She smiles, lightens up, jokes back with him briefly, and everyone goes away happier.

It drives me crazy to see people get away with this when I can't. Whenever I stick by my guns and act according to my personal moral code rather than doing what most people would, or what's most practical, or what common sense or game theory say is the best bet in the long run — don't take free samples of food you don't intend to buy, let other people off the elevator before you enter it yourself, don't vote on issues you don't understand — I get labeled irrational and stupid and neurotic and inflexible (and cynical, but that's by my mother, who doesn't know what the word really means).

What's the deal? Am I picking the wrong situations to stand by my principles? (But are they still principles if you pick and choose when to follow them? I say "no".) Do I have the wrong ones to begin with? Am I just bad at relating to people? (Okay, probably "yes" on that one.) Is Shaterri in truth being practical rather than principled, following a rule he has personally observed benefits him more often than a priori estimates suggest and in actuality closer to a "the end justifies the means" kind of guy than to someone who attempts to do Right because it is Right?

Comments

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering who is labeling you as "irrational and stupid and neurotic and inflexible." (other than your mom, or is she the main one)? I only ask because I know that sometimes when I'm in a similar headspace, it turns out that I am more frustrated and critical of myself than those around me actually are.

My feeling - and I could be wrong, and you have more interactions to go on than I do - is that shaterri can botch a social interaction as well as any of us, and that while he has some hits like that, where he just completely charms people...he has his share of misses too. In fact, I think Shaterri's true interpersonal talent often lies in *recovery* after he's made a gaffe (that I do have personal experience with, heh), which is also a bit of what you've showcased here.

The two of you are vastly different in some ways - he is definitely more of a happy-in-the-spotlight sort of person. But you are very kind and caring...prone to the understated as opposed to the showy gesture. Maybe a lot of people do miss your ways of showing that you care - I can see where that could be frustrating as hell - but I think the most important people in your life do know how to look and what to see.

I also think that S would be the first one to admit that he can be as neurotic or irrational as anyone. ;-)

Standard disclaimer: none of this is meant to be derogatory toward shaterri, whom I adore. It's more that I also see you as a person worthy of affirmation and affection. More - no, most - importantly, I hope that you can see yourself that way too.

*gives you warm hugs, if you'll have them*

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

Also, I see I've missed the actual point, which is probably more about adhering to one's own moral code in terms of interacting with people or just in general. On that note, I think that it's really difficult to see inside someone else's mind in order to know zir motivations and if zie is acting on their true principles or not.

But in this case, when the person's your partner, I think it might be good to have a heart to heart about what his underlying values are and how he is/is not living them...and what yours are too and how you are trying to live them. It's awesome if you end up having a deeper understanding of each other in the process.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Well, the Pauly Principle says that if an action benefits *everyone*, it's good. So I'm not sure why it matters whether or not a principle is involved if you're just doing something that's good on the spot.

The specific examples you gave are kind of weird, individually... the elevtor thing is immediate self-interest (they're going to have to jostle you to get out if you don't let them off first), the sample one is 180-degrees backwards (they're intended to convince you to buy something you weren't planning to -- if you're already planning to buy it, you shouldn't take one), and the vote one is... questionable. It really depends on how little you understand the issue and how dangerous giving the people who do understand it free reign is. My general rule there is 'if you don't understand it, vote for the status quo'. >:)

Obviously, this means we must duel to the death with pistols.

[quarrel.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering who is labeling you as "irrational and stupid and neurotic and inflexible."
Usually the ones behind me at the elevator unhappy that I'm holding them up, or the pundits who don't understand why I don't automatically toe their party line because their candidate is obviously the best.

[quarrel.livejournal.com]

I happen to think it's important that you know why you're doing something, that you're honest with yourself regarding whether you're trying to make the world a better place for everyone or you're doing whatever helps you the most (and if that means helping others too, meh, they got lucky this time).

I don't have the samples backward. Rather, my original example is oversimplified for the sake of brevity. In actuality, I might be sure I'm buying nothing, be unsure whether I'm buying, be sure I'm buying but unsure exactly what, or be sure I'm buying X. The voting issue is also pared down, as it's missing the second solution of "understand the issue".

[quarrel.livejournal.com]

Almost forgot. I can't find this "Pauly Principle" or any famous sociologists with that surname. All I get is the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and that's way off base.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Eh, maybe I got the name wrong. It was something silly and catchy-sounding like that though.

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I grok this, because irrational, stupid, neurotic, and inflexible are some pretty intense labels for pundits and random people at an elevator to be throwing at you.